Please review http://review.gluster.com/7788 submitted to remove the filtering of that error. Pranith ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harshavardhana" <harsha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Kaleb KEITHLEY" <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:12:02 AM > Subject: Re: regarding special treatment of ENOTSUP for setxattr > > http://review.gluster.com/#/c/7823/ - the fix here > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Harshavardhana > <harsha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Here are the important locations in the XFS tree coming from 2.6.32 branch > > > > STATIC int > > xfs_set_acl(struct inode *inode, int type, struct posix_acl *acl) > > { > > struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); > > unsigned char *ea_name; > > int error; > > > > if (S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode)) ----------------> I would > > generally think this is the issue. > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > STATIC long > > xfs_vn_fallocate( > > struct inode *inode, > > int mode, > > loff_t offset, > > loff_t len) > > { > > long error; > > loff_t new_size = 0; > > xfs_flock64_t bf; > > xfs_inode_t *ip = XFS_I(inode); > > int cmd = XFS_IOC_RESVSP; > > int attr_flags = XFS_ATTR_NOLOCK; > > > > if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)) > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > STATIC int > > xfs_ioc_setxflags( > > xfs_inode_t *ip, > > struct file *filp, > > void __user *arg) > > { > > struct fsxattr fa; > > unsigned int flags; > > unsigned int mask; > > int error; > > > > if (copy_from_user(&flags, arg, sizeof(flags))) > > return -EFAULT; > > > > if (flags & ~(FS_IMMUTABLE_FL | FS_APPEND_FL | \ > > FS_NOATIME_FL | FS_NODUMP_FL | \ > > FS_SYNC_FL)) > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > Perhaps some sort of system level acl's are being propagated by us > > over symlinks() ? - perhaps this is the related to the same issue of > > following symlinks? > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri > > <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Sent the following patch to remove the special treatment of ENOTSUP here: > >> http://review.gluster.org/7788 > >> > >> Pranith > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Kaleb KEITHLEY" <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> To: gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:01:53 PM > >>> Subject: Re: regarding special treatment of ENOTSUP for > >>> setxattr > >>> > >>> On 05/13/2014 08:00 AM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana wrote: > >>> > On 05/07/2014 03:44 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> >>> From: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> >>> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> >>> Cc: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>, gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx, > >>> >>> "Anand Avati" <aavati@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 3:42:16 PM > >>> >>> Subject: Re: regarding special treatment of ENOTSUP > >>> >>> for setxattr > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I think with "repetitive log message suppression" patch being merged, > >>> >>> we > >>> >>> don't really need gf_log_occasionally (except if they are logged in > >>> >>> DEBUG or > >>> >>> TRACE levels). > >>> >> That definitely helps. But still, setxattr calls are not supposed to > >>> >> fail with ENOTSUP on FS where we support gluster. If there are special > >>> >> keys which fail with ENOTSUPP, we can conditionally log setxattr > >>> >> failures only when the key is something new? > >>> > >>> I know this is about EOPNOTSUPP (a.k.a. ENOTSUPP) returned by > >>> setxattr(2) for legitimate attrs. > >>> > >>> But I can't help but wondering if this isn't related to other bugs we've > >>> had with, e.g., lgetxattr(2) called on invalid xattrs? > >>> > >>> E.g. see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765202. We have a > >>> hack where xlators communicate with each other by getting (and setting?) > >>> invalid xattrs; the posix xlator has logic to filter out invalid > >>> xattrs, but due to bugs this hasn't always worked perfectly. > >>> > >>> It would be interesting to know which xattrs are getting errors and on > >>> which fs types. > >>> > >>> FWIW, in a quick perusal of a fairly recent (3.14.3) kernel, in xfs > >>> there are only six places where EOPNOTSUPP is returned, none of them > >>> related to xattrs. In ext[34] EOPNOTSUPP can be returned if the > >>> user_xattr option is not enabled (enabled by default in ext4.) And in > >>> the higher level vfs xattr code there are many places where EOPNOTSUPP > >>> _might_ be returned, primarily only if subordinate function calls aren't > >>> invoked which would clear the default or return a different error. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Kaleb > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gluster-devel mailing list > >>> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gluster-devel mailing list > >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > > > > > > > -- > > Religious confuse piety with mere ritual, the virtuous confuse > > regulation with outcomes > > > > -- > Religious confuse piety with mere ritual, the virtuous confuse > regulation with outcomes > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
