fusefs: update FUSE protocol to 7.24 and implement FUSE_LSEEK
FUSE_LSEEK reports holes on fuse file systems, and is used for example
by bsdtar.
MFC after: 2 weeks
Relnotes: yes
Details
Details
test cases added. Manual testing performed with tar, ktrace, and libfuse's passthrough file system
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
- Lint
Lint Passed - Unit
No Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 35786 Build 32675: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
| sys/fs/fuse/fuse_ipc.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 281–282 | Should we assert !notimpl? | |
| sys/fs/fuse/fuse_vnops.c | ||
| 330 | style(9): extra blank line | |
| 342–345 | Shouldn't any non-ENOSYS error path invoke fsess_set_impl(..., LSEEK)? | |
| 947 | Is it safe to access *offp without copyin/copyout? For ordinary syscall arguments, I think it would not be. But maybe we copy in (and out) the a_data section of ioctl args? | |
| 1452–1453 | style(9): brace goes on the end of the previous line | |
| sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c | ||
| 1645 ↗ | (On Diff #81281) | spurious added line? seems unreachable. |
| tests/sys/fs/fusefs/mockfs.cc | ||
| 114 | Could drop the constant and use nitems(). Not a big deal. | |
| sys/fs/fuse/fuse_ipc.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 281–282 | Maybe. But I worry that a schizophrenic server might change its mind about whether a particular RPC is supported and trigger a panic. That's not possible ATM, because fsess_set_impl is only called in one place, but it might be possible if we start using fsess_set_impl more widely. | |
| sys/fs/fuse/fuse_vnops.c | ||
| 342–345 | No, because there are errors like ENOTCONN that can be returned even if the daemon never got the message. | |
| 947 | Yes, it's safe. offp points to kernel space. See the fo_ioctl call about 75% of the way through vn_seek. | |
| sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c | ||
| 1645 ↗ | (On Diff #81281) | damn, yes that wasn't supposed to be submitted. You'd think the compiler would complain. |