> > > I think this is sort of backwards -- the checks should stay in
> > > do_clone_file_range, and vfs_copy_file_range should be calling that
> > > instead of directly calling ->remap_range():
> > >
> > > vfs_copy_file_range()
> > > {
> > > file_start_write(...);
> > > ret = do_clone_file_range(...);
> > > if (ret > 0)
> > > return ret;
> > > ret = do_copy_file_range(...);
> > > file_end_write(...);
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> >
> > I'm already confused by the way we weave in and out of "vfs_/do_*"
> > functions, and this just makes it worse.
> >
> > Just what the hell is supposed to be in a "vfs_" prefixed function,
> > and why the hell is it considered a "vfs" level function if we then
> > export it's internal functions for individual filesystems to use?
>
> I /think/ vfs_ functions are file_start_write()/file_end_write()
> wrappers around a similarly named function that lacks the freeze
> protection??
That is definitely not an official definition of vfs_ vs. do_, but I found
this rule to be a common practice, which is why I swapped
{do,vfs}_clone_file_range(). But around vfs you can find many examples
where do_ helpers wrap vfs_ helpers.
>
> (AFAICT Amir made that split so that overlayfs could use these
> functions, though I do not know if everything vfs_ was made that way
> /specifically/ for overlayfs or if that's the way things have been and
> ovlfs simply takes advantage of it...)
>
> Guhhh, none of this is documented......
>
It looks like in git epoc, things were pretty straight forward.
vfs_XXX was the interface called after sys_XXX converted
userspace arguments (e.g. char *name, int fd) to vfs objects
(e.g. struct path,dentry,inode,file). Sometimes vfs_ helpers called
do_ helpers for several reasons. See for example epoc version
of fs/namei.c fs/read_write.c.
Even then there were exception. For example do_sendfile()
doesn't even have a vfs_ interface, although it is clear what
that prospect interface would look like.
To that end, do_splice_direct() acts as the standard do_ helper
to that non-existing vfs_ interface.
>From there on, I guess things kinda grew organically.
fs/namei.c syscalls grew do_XXXat() helpers between syscalls
and vfs_XXX interface.
Overlayfs uses vfs_ interface 99% of the time, so from that perspective
it is regarded as an interface with vfs objects as arguments that does
NOT skip security_ checks and does NOT bypass freeze protection.
Overlayfs calling do_clone_file_range() and do_splice_direct() are
the only exception to this rule.
If we would want to replace those calls in ovl_copy_up_data() with
a single call to do_copy_file_range(), than said helper should NOT
be taking freeze protection and should do the fallback between
filesystem copy_file_range and generic_copy_file_range.
Cheers,
Amir.
