On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 1:06 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 12:52 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:46 PM Trond Myklebust
> > <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 12:27 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > When VFS calls copy_file_range on a 4.0 mount (and when in and
> > > > out
> > > > file is the same), we need to return ENOTSUPP instead of EINVAL.
> > > > Since no COPY operation is defined in 4.0, then like 3.0, it
> > > > should
> > > > fallback to doing do_splice_direct().
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise xfstest generic/075,091,112,263 fail.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/nfs/nfs4file.c | 6 ++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
> > > > index 45b2322..9a222b0 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4file.c
> > > > @@ -133,6 +133,12 @@ static ssize_t nfs4_copy_file_range(struct
> > > > file
> > > > *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > > > struct file *file_out, loff_t
> > > > pos_out,
> > > > size_t count, unsigned int
> > > > flags)
> > > > {
> > > > + struct nfs_server *server = NFS_SERVER(file_inode(file_in);
> > > > + struct nfs_client *client = server->nfs_client;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (client->cl_minorversion < 1)
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > if (file_inode(file_in) == file_inode(file_out))
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > return nfs42_proc_copy(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out,
> > > > count);
> > >
> > > Let's please just move the test for NFS_CAP_COPY from
> > > nfs42_proc_copy()
> > > into the above function.
> >
> > But the return order of errors here for different conditions matter.
> > For 4.1+ mounts, if in == out, we'd expect EINVAL even if server
> > isn't
> > capable. But we can't just put the in == out first because for 4.0,
> > we
> > need to always return EOPNOTSUPP.
> >
> > > BTW: Why do we return -EINVAL in the file_in == file_out case? Is
> > > there
> > > any reason why we shouldn't just return EOPNOTSUPP there too in
> > > order
> > > to let splice() fulfil the operation?
> >
> > Yes: in == out -> EINVAL is a spec requirement.
> >
>
> Returning NFS4ERR_INVAL when the files are identical is a requirement
> for the NFSv4.2 server.
>
> On the other hand, the requirement for the Linux file copy operation is
> that it should succeed in this situation. So as far as I can tell, we
> will continue to fail xfstests until we work around the discrepancy
> with the protocol requirement here. The simplest way to do so would
> appear to be to return EOPNOTSUPP.
Ok so you are arguing that those xfstest's for copy_file_range() on
the same file shouldn't fail for any of the NFS version regardless of
the NFSv4.2 req for not doing a copy on the same file. Let me send out
another version that addresses both then. I will change the "in ==
out" to return EOPNOTSUPP which will allow the fallback for 4.2+ and
check for the server capability before that.
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
