From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:44827 "EHLO
        mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726124AbeLATX5 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 1 Dec 2018 14:23:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181130200348.59524-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> <20181130200348.59524-2-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181130200348.59524-2-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 10:11:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxjXGPOPQTsgKnMx7YN2S1Oz3MDbg5kDf0VV1rK+9Ybu8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] VFS generic copy_file_range() support
To: Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>
Cc: bfields@redhat.com,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:04 PM Olga Kornievskaia
<olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Relax the condition that input files must be from the same
> file systems.
>
> Add checks that input parameters adhere semantics.
>
> If no copy_file_range() support is found, then do generic
> checks for the unsupported page cache ranges, LFS, limits,
> and clear setuid/setgid if not running as root before calling
> do_splice_direct(). Update atime,ctime,mtime afterwards.
>
> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com>
> ---

This patch is either going to bring you down or make you stronger ;-)

This is not how its done. Behavior change and refactoring mixed into
one patch is wrong for several reasons. And when you relax same sb
check you need to restrict it inside filesystems, like your previous patch
did.

You already had v7 patch reviewed-by 4 developers.
What made you go and change it (and posted as v2)?

Your intentions were good trying to fix the broken syscall, but
I hope you understood that Dave didn't mean that you *have* to
add the missing generic checks as part of your work. He just
pointed out how broken the current interface is in the context of
reviewing your patch.

In any case, I hear that Dave is neck deep in fixing copy_file_range()
so changes to this function should be collaborated with him. Or better
yet, wait until he posts his fixes and carry on from there.

If I were you, I would just go back to the reviewed v7 vfs patch.

Thanks,
Amir.