archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <>
To: Greg KH <>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: problems with splice from /proc (was Linux 5.10-rc1)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:49:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-27  7:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-25 22:40 Linux 5.10-rc1 Linus Torvalds
2020-10-25 23:43 ` linux-next: stats Stephen Rothwell
2020-10-27  6:48 ` problems with splice from /proc (was Linux 5.10-rc1) Greg KH
2020-10-27  7:49   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-10-27  7:55     ` Greg KH
2020-10-27  8:07       ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27  8:14         ` Greg KH
2020-10-27  8:14           ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27  9:17           ` Greg KH
2020-10-27 16:32             ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 17:43               ` Greg KH
2020-10-28 16:00               ` Greg KH
2020-10-28 18:33                 ` Greg KH
2020-10-28 18:34                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-28 18:35                   ` [PATCH] proc "single files": switch to ->read_iter Greg Kroah-Hartman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).