On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:06 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ideally I'd imagine something something similar to how we handle
> FS_IOC_GETFLAGS/SETFLAGS.
>
> Exceptions for those were also added in commit 31070f6ccec0 ("fuse:
> Fix parameter for FS_IOC_{GET,SET}FLAGS"). But then infrastructure
> was added to the vfs (commit 4c5b47997521 ("vfs: add fileattr ops"))
> so that filesystems can handle these as normal callbacks instead of
> dealing with ioctls directly.
>
> In the fsverity case this is not such a clear cut case, since only
> fuse (and possible network fs?) would actually implement the vfs
> callback, others would just set the default handler from fsverity. So
> I don't insist on doing this, just saying that it would be the
> cleanest outcome.
>
> If we do add exceptions, the requirement from me is that it's split
> out into a separate function from fuse_do_ioctl().
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
Thank you all for the feedback and suggestions!
Would allowing FUSE_IOCTL_RETRY for these specific ioctls be
possible/preferable? From my limited understanding retrying is
designed to handle dynamically sized data. However it seems like
that's currently only allowed for CUSE.
If that's not a good idea then I'll try to split it into a separate
function if you don't feel strongly about the other approach.
