On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:10 PM Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:04 PM Patrick Donnelly <pdonnell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 4:59 AM David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:17:11 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, I rolled a half-assed xfstests patch that did this, and HCH gave > > > > it a NAK. He's probably right though, and fixing it in ceph.ko is a > > > > better approach I think. > > > > > > It sounds as though Christoph's objection is to any use of a "ceph" > > > xattr namespace for exposing CephFS specific information. I'm not sure > > > what the alternatives would be, but I find the vxattrs much nicer for > > > consumption compared to ioctls, etc. > > > > Agreed. I don't understand the objection [1] at all. > > > > If the issue is that utilities copying a file may also copy xattrs, I > > don't understand why there would be an expectation that all xattrs are > > copyable or should be copied. > > I'm sure it is about this, and that's the expectation because, uh, > outside of weird things like Ceph then all matters are copyable and > should be copied. That's how the interface is defined and built. I don't really think anyone has defined what the interface really should do. It's not even in POSIX (but apparently was in a draft). The Linux documentation is silent on this matter AFAICT. Until Linux gives us an acceptable mechanism (ioctl is not) to expose/manipulate this information, we will continue to use xattrs. (This patch annoys me but I'm okay with merging it.) -- Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D. He / Him / His Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
