On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 09:02:05AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 03:28, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 01:26:36PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Sept 2025 at 17:49, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 11:55:25AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > > > > Agree? > > > > > > > > I think we do, except maybe the difficult first point. :) > > > > > > Let's then defer the LOOKUPX thing ;) I'm fine with adding IMMUTABLE > > > and APPEND to fuse_attr::flags. > > > > OK. Should I hide that behind the fuse mount having iomap turned on? > > Or fc->is_local_fs == true? Or let any server set those bits? > > > > One thing occurred to me -- for a plain old fuse server that is the > > client for some network filesystem, the other end might have its own > > immutable/append bits, in which case we actually *do* want to let those > > bits through from the FUSE_STATX replies. > > Right, as I said this might have worked without VFS help, but having > it consistently in the VFS as well would be nicer. > > In that spirit, putting those bits in the inode is safe only in the > local fs case, so I guess that's what we should do. And for > consistency, in the local fs case inode->flags should be the > authoritative source and all the userspace API's should be looking at > that, instead of what the server sent in the IOCTL or STATX replies. Ok, I'll meld that all together today. --D > Thanks, > Miklos >
