| Message ID | 20241014192759.863031-3-amir73il@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix regression in libfuse test_copy_file_range() | expand |
diff --git a/fs/fuse/passthrough.c b/fs/fuse/passthrough.c index c80b9712eff7..bbac547dfcb3 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/passthrough.c +++ b/fs/fuse/passthrough.c @@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ static void fuse_file_accessed(struct file *file) fuse_invalidate_atime(inode); } -static void fuse_passthrough_end_write(struct file *file, loff_t, ssize_t) +static void fuse_passthrough_end_write(struct file *file, loff_t pos, ssize_t ret) { struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); - fuse_invalidate_attr_mask(inode, FUSE_STATX_MODSIZE); + fuse_write_update_attr(inode, pos, ret); } ssize_t fuse_passthrough_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
yangyun reported that libfuse test test_copy_file_range() copies zero bytes from a newly written file when fuse passthrough is enabled. The reason is that extending passthrough write is not updating the fuse inode size and when vfs_copy_file_range() observes a zero size inode, it returns without calling the filesystem copy_file_range() method. Fix this by adjusting the fuse inode size after an extending passthrough write. This does not provide cache coherency of fuse inode attributes and backing inode attributes, but it should prevent situations where fuse inode size is too small, causing read/copy to be wrongly shortened. Reported-by: yangyun <yangyun50@huawei.com> Closes: https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/issues/1048 Fixes: 57e1176e6086 ("fuse: implement read/write passthrough") Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> --- fs/fuse/passthrough.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)