From nobody Thu Jan 9 01:36:53 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YT6pP4L7mz5kQYX for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 01:37:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4YT6pN5BBDz53rH for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 01:37:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2001:470:d5e7:1::1 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of kostikbel@gmail.com) smtp.mailfrom=kostikbel@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by kib.kiev.ua (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 5091ar5B088978; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 03:36:56 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 5091ar5B088978 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 5091ar1C088977; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 03:36:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 03:36:53 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Rick Macklem Cc: Freebsd fs , richard@kojedz.in Subject: Re: RFC: Marking file system va_filerev style Message-ID: References: List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4YT6pN5BBDz53rH X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.97 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.991]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.981]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all:c]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3] On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 04:39:36PM -0800, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi, > > Back in Sept. Richard reported a problem with a > FreeBSD server serving NFSv4 to Linux clients, > where the file attributes would get messed up > sometimes. (I can't recall if he posted me or a mailing > list.) > > Anyhow, He tried a patch I gave him that told the > Linux client that the Change attribute (va_filerev) > increments for each change. > --> This appears to have fixed the problem. > > However, this patch should really report what the > exported fs does w.r.t. va_filerev and not just guess > that it increments it. > > So, the question is, how do I have file systems report > how they generate va_filerev? > My current thought is a new MNTK_xxx flag set by > the filesystem in its mount point to indicate it increments > it upon each change (which is what UFS and ZFS currently > does, I think?) > > Does this sound reasonable? Is this a per-mount property, or a generic filesystem-type property (for me, the nature of the indicated feature tends to mean per-type). Then it might be that a VFCF_ flag is the more natural solution than MNTK_ one.