[LTP] [PATCH 1/1] proc01: Whitelist /proc/fs/nfsd/nfsv4recoverydir

[Chuck Lever]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 01:43:37PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 17:37 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > 
> > > On Apr 15, 2024, at 1:35 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2024-04-15 at 17:27 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Apr 15, 2024, at 1:21 PM, Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > /proc/fs/nfsd/nfsv4recoverydir started from kernel 6.8 report EINVAL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > @ Jeff, Chuck, Neil, NFS devs: The patch itself whitelist reading
> > > > > /proc/fs/nfsd/nfsv4recoverydir in LTP test. I suspect reading failed
> > > > > with EINVAL in 6.8 was a deliberate change and expected behavior when
> > > > > CONFIG_NFSD_LEGACY_CLIENT_TRACKING is not set:
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure it was deliberate. This seems like a behavior
> > > > regression. Jeff?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't think I intended to make it return -EINVAL. I guess that's what
> > > happens when there is no entry for it in the write_op array.
> > > 
> > > With CONFIG_NFSD_LEGACY_CLIENT_TRACKING disabled, that file has no
> > > meaning or value at all anymore. Maybe we should just remove the dentry
> > > altogether when CONFIG_NFSD_LEGACY_CLIENT_TRACKING is disabled?
> > 
> > My understanding of the rules about modifying this part of
> > the kernel-user interface is that the file has to stay, even
> > though it's now a no-op.
> > 
> 
> Does it?  Where are these rules written? 
> 
> What should we have it do now when read and written? Maybe EOPNOTSUPP
> would be better, if we can make it just return an error?
> 
> We could also make it just discard written data, and present a blank
> string when read. What do the rules say we are required to do here?

The best I could find was Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst.

Tell you what, you and Petr work out what you'd like to do, let's
figure out the right set of folks to review changes in /proc, and
we'll go from there. If no-one has a problem removing the file, I'm
not going to stand in the way.


-- 
Chuck Lever