On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 18:03 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-07-17 09:54:48, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/ext2/file.c b/fs/ext2/file.c
> > index b21891a6bfca..d57c4259945d 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext2/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext2/file.c
> > @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ const struct file_operations ext2_file_operations = {
> > .get_unmapped_area = thp_get_unmapped_area,
> > .splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
> > .splice_write = iter_file_splice_write,
> > + .integrity_read = generic_file_read_iter,
> > };
> >
> > const struct inode_operations ext2_file_inode_operations = {
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs/ext4/file.c
> > index 831fd6beebf0..e7b2bd43cdc4 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> > @@ -753,6 +753,7 @@ const struct file_operations ext4_file_operations = {
> > .splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
> > .splice_write = iter_file_splice_write,
> > .fallocate = ext4_fallocate,
> > + .integrity_read = ext4_file_read_iter,
> > };
>
> I think both ext2 and ext4 need a bit more special handling (similarly to
> XFS) due to DAX. E.g. ext4_dax_read_iter() will try to get i_rwsem which is
> wrong for integrity_read handler as far as I understand.
True, thanks. This will be addressed in the next version.
> > index c2062a108d19..9b49d09ba180 100644
> > --- a/fs/gfs2/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/gfs2/file.c
> > @@ -1124,6 +1124,7 @@ const struct file_operations gfs2_file_fops = {
> > .splice_write = gfs2_file_splice_write,
> > .setlease = simple_nosetlease,
> > .fallocate = gfs2_fallocate,
> > + .integrity_read = generic_file_read_iter,
> > };
> >
> > const struct file_operations gfs2_dir_fops = {
> > @@ -1152,6 +1153,7 @@ const struct file_operations gfs2_file_fops_nolock = {
> > .splice_write = gfs2_file_splice_write,
> > .setlease = generic_setlease,
> > .fallocate = gfs2_fallocate,
> > + .integrity_read = generic_file_read_iter,
> > };
> >
> > const struct file_operations gfs2_dir_fops_nolock = {
> ...
> > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/file.c b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
> > index bfeb647459d9..2832a7c92acd 100644
> > --- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
> > @@ -2536,6 +2536,7 @@ const struct file_operations ocfs2_fops = {
> > .fallocate = ocfs2_fallocate,
> > .clone_file_range = ocfs2_file_clone_range,
> > .dedupe_file_range = ocfs2_file_dedupe_range,
> > + .integrity_read = ocfs2_file_read_iter,
> > };
> >
> > const struct file_operations ocfs2_dops = {
>
> For cluster filesystems like gfs2 or ocfs2 I actually wonder whether IMA
> works as it should - without special cluster locking another node may be
> modifying the file while you read it even when you hold i_rwsem. So don't
> these filesystems need some special treatment?
Both ocf2 and gfs2 can be created as a local filesystem, not only as
part of a cluster. As part of a clustered node, you're probably
right.
Mimi
