Re: problems with splice from /proc (was Linux 5.10-rc1)

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:49:11AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:48:32AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 03:40:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > The most interesting - to me - change here is Christoph's setf_fs()
> > > removal (it got merged through Al Viro, as you can see in my mergelog
> > > below).  It's not a _huge_ change, but it's interesting because the
> > > whole model of set_fs() to specify whether a userspace copy actually
> > > goes to user space or kernel space goes back to pretty much the
> > > original release of Linux, and while the name is entirely historic (it
> > > hasn't used the %fs segment register in a long time), the concept has
> > > remained. Until now.
> > 
> > I told Al this yesterday, but figured I would mention it here for others
> > to see.
> > 
> > Commit 36e2c7421f02 ("fs: don't allow splice read/write without explicit
> > ops") from this patch series, is breaking the bionic test suite that
> > does the following to verify that splice is working:
> > 
> > 	int in = open("/proc/cpuinfo", O_RDONLY);
> > 	ASSERT_NE(in, -1);
> > 
> > 	TemporaryFile tf;
> > 	ssize_t bytes_read = splice(in, nullptr, pipe_fds[1], nullptr, 8*1024, SPLICE_F_MORE | SPLICE_F_MOVE);
> > 	ASSERT_NE(bytes_read, -1);
> > 
> > Before this change, all works well but now splice fails on /proc files
> > (and I'm guessing other virtual filesystems).
> > 
> > I'll ask the bionic developers if they can change their test to some
> > other file, but this is a regression and might show up in other "test
> > platforms" as well.  Using /proc for this is just so simple because
> > these files are "always there" and don't require any housekeeping for
> > test suites to worry about .
> 
> Is this just a test or a real application?   I already have the
> infrastructure to support read_iter/write_iter on procfs and seq_files,
> but due to the intrusiveness we decided to only fix instances on an as
> needed basis.  So we'll have everything ready once we pull the trigger.

This is just a test, part of the bionic test suite to verify that bionic
is working properly, and is run on new kernels as a verification that
nothing functional broke in the kernel update.

I don't know about "real applications" yet.

Do you have to implement this on a per-proc-file-basis, or will it work
for the whole filesystem?

And are the patches public anywhere that I could test them out?

thanks,

greg k-h