lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 22/23] fs: default to generic_file_splice_read for files having ->read_iter
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:03:29AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:05:44AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:48:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > If a file implements the ->read_iter method, the iter based splice read
> > > works and is always preferred over the ->read based one. Use it by
> > > default in do_splice_to and remove all the direct assignment of
> > > generic_file_splice_read to file_operations.
> >
> > The worst problem here is the assumption that all ->read_iter() instances
> > will take pipe-backed destination; that's _not_ automatically true.
> > In particular, it's almost certainly false for tap_read_iter() (as
> > well as tun_chr_read_iter() in IFF_VNET_HDR case).
> >
> > Other potentially interesting cases: cuse and hugetlbfs.
> >
> > But in any case, that blind assertion ("iter based splice read works")
> > really needs to be backed by something.
>
> I think we need to fix that in the instances, as we really expect
> ->splice_read to just work instead of the caller knowing what could
> work and what might not.

Er... generic_file_splice_read() is a library helper; the decision to use
is up to the filesystem/driver/protocol in question, and so's making sure
it's not used with ->read_iter() that isn't fit for it.

Note that we *do* have instances where we have different ->splice_read()
(sometimes using generic_file_splice_read(), sometimes not) even though
->read_iter() is there.

Your patch ignores those (thankfully), but commit message is rather
misleading - it strongly implies that generic_file_splice_read() is
*always* the right thing when ->read_iter() is there, not just that
in such cases it makes a better fallback than default_file_splice_read().

And even the latter assumption is not obvious - AFAICS, we do have
counterexamples.

I'm not saying that e.g. tun/tap don't need fixing for other reasons and
it's quite possible that they will become suitable for generic_file_splice_read()
after that's done. But I'm really unhappy about the implied change of
generic_file_splice_read() role; if nothing else, commit message should
be very clear that if you have ->read_iter() and generic_file_splice_read()
won't do the right thing, you MUST provide ->splice_read() of your own.
Probably worth Documentation/filesystem/porting entry as well.

Alternatively, if you really want to change the role of that thing,
we need to go through all instances that are *not* generic_file_splice_read()
and see what's going on in those. Starting with the sockets.

The list right now is:
fs/fuse/dev.c:2263: .splice_read = fuse_dev_splice_read,
fs/overlayfs/file.c:786: .splice_read = ovl_splice_read,
net/socket.c:164: .splice_read = sock_splice_read,
kernel/relay.c:1331: .splice_read = relay_file_splice_read,
kernel/trace/trace.c:7081: .splice_read = tracing_splice_read_pipe,
kernel/trace/trace.c:7149: .splice_read = tracing_buffers_splice_read,
kernel/trace/trace.c:7712: .splice_read = tracing_buffers_splice_read,

The first 3 have ->read_iter(); the rest (kernel/* stuff) doesn't.
Socket case uses generic_file_splice_read() unless the protocol provides
an override; SMC, TCP, TCPv6, AF_UNIX STREAM and KCM SEQPACKET do that.

I hadn't looked into the socket side of things for 5 years or so, so I'd
have to dig the notes out first. It wasn't pleasant...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-30 17:09    [W:0.185 / U:5.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site