Re: [PATCH v5 04/11] blksnap: header file of the module interface

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 08:25:15AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > + * Return: 0 if succeeded, negative errno otherwise.
> > + */
> > +#define IOCTL_BLKSNAP_SNAPSHOT_APPEND_STORAGE					\
> > +	_IOW(BLKSNAP, blksnap_ioctl_snapshot_append_storage,			\
> > +	     struct blksnap_snapshot_append_storage)
> 
> That's an API I'm extremely uncomfortable with. We've learnt the
> lesson *many times* that userspace physical mappings of underlying
> file storage are unreliable.
> 
> i.e.  This is reliant on userspace telling the kernel the physical
> mapping of the filesystem file to block device LBA space and then
> providing a guarantee (somehow) that the mapping will always remain
> unchanged. i.e. It's reliant on passing FIEMAP data from the
> filesystem to userspace and then back into the kernel without it
> becoming stale and somehow providing a guarantee that nothing (not
> even the filesystem doing internal garbage collection) will change
> it.

Hmm, I never thought of this API as used on files that somewhere
had a logical to physical mapping applied to them.

Sergey, is that the indtended use case?  If so we really should
be going through the file system using direct I/O.