2024년 4월 15일 (월) 오후 9:36, Marios Makassikis <mmakassikis@xxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:51 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 2024년 4월 15일 (월) 오후 6:01, Marios Makassikis <mmakassikis@xxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 2:07 PM Marios Makassikis
> > > <mmakassikis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > File overwrite case is explicitly handled, so it is not necessary to
> > > > pass RENAME_NOREPLACE to vfs_rename.
> > > >
> > > > Clearing the flag fixes rename operations when the share is a ntfs-3g
> > > > mount. The latter uses an older version of fuse with no support for
> > > > flags in the ->rename op.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marios Makassikis <mmakassikis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/smb/server/vfs.c | 3 +++
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bumping this as I haven't received any feedback.
> > > Are there any issues with the patch ?
> > Sorry for missing this patch. Please cc me when submitting the patch
> > to the list next time.
> > I didn't understand why it is a problem with ntfs-3g yet.
> > Is it just clean-up patch ? or this flags cause some issue with ntfs-3g ?
> > Could you please elaborate more ?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Until commit 74d7970febf ("ksmbd: fix racy issue from using ->d_parent
> and ->d_name"),
> the logic to overwrite a file or fail depending on the ReplaceIfExists
> flag was open-coded.
> This is the same as calling vfs_rename() with the RENAME_NOREPLACE flag, so it
> makes sense to use that instead.
>
> When using FUSE, the behaviour depends on the userland application implementing
> the fs. On the kernel side, this is the function that ends up being called:
>
> fs/fuse/dir.c:
> static int fuse_rename2(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *olddir,
> struct dentry *oldent, struct inode *newdir,
> struct dentry *newent, unsigned int flags)
> {
> struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(olddir);
> int err;
>
> if (fuse_is_bad(olddir))
> return -EIO;
>
> if (flags & ~(RENAME_NOREPLACE | RENAME_EXCHANGE | RENAME_WHITEOUT))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (flags) {
> if (fc->no_rename2 || fc->minor < 23)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> err = fuse_rename_common(olddir, oldent, newdir, newent, flags,
> FUSE_RENAME2,
> sizeof(struct fuse_rename2_in));
> if (err == -ENOSYS) {
> fc->no_rename2 = 1;
> err = -EINVAL;
> }
> } else {
> err = fuse_rename_common(olddir, oldent, newdir, newent, 0,
> FUSE_RENAME,
> sizeof(struct fuse_rename_in));
> }
>
> return err;
> }
>
> Because ntfs-3g uses an older version of the FUSE API and flags are
> passed by ksmbd,
> rename attempts fail because of this bit:
>
> if (flags) {
> if (fc->no_rename2 || fc->minor < 23)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> ksmbd already handles the overwrite case before even calling
> vfs_rename(). So passing
> the flag doesn't add much.
Okay, Thanks for your detailed explanation:)
Can you fix a warning from checkpatch.pl ?
WARNING: Block comments use a trailing */ on a separate line
#123: FILE: fs/smb/server/vfs.c:758:
+ * filesystems that may not support rename flags (e.g: fuse) */
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 lines checked
Thanks.
>
> --
> Marios
