From: David Laight <[email protected]>
To: 'Jens Axboe' <[email protected]>, Al Viro <[email protected]>,
"Pavel Begunkov" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
linux-fsdevel <[email protected]>,
Palash Oswal <[email protected]>,
"Sudip Mukherjee" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] iter revert problems
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:28:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
From: Jens Axboe
> Sent: 22 August 2021 00:14
>
> On 8/21/21 4:25 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 03:24:28PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> On 8/12/21 9:40 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>> For the bug description see 2/2. As mentioned there the current problems
> >>> is because of generic_write_checks(), but there was also a similar case
> >>> fixed in 5.12, which should have been triggerable by normal
> >>> write(2)/read(2) and others.
> >>>
> >>> It may be better to enforce reexpands as a long term solution, but for
> >>> now this patchset is quickier and easier to backport.
> >>
> >> We need to do something with this, hopefully soon.
> >
> > I still don't like that approach ;-/ If anything, I would rather do
> > something like this, and to hell with one extra word on stack in
> > several functions; at least that way the semantics is easy to describe.
>
> Pavel suggested this very approach initially as well when we discussed
> it, and if you're fine with the extra size_t, it is by far the best way
> to get this done and not have a wonky/fragile API.
All (well maybe almost all) the users of iov_iter have the
short iov[] cache and the pointer to the big iov[] to kfree()
allocated together with the iov_iter structure itself.
These are almost always on stack.
Putting the whole lot together in a single structure would
make the call sequences a lot less complex and wouldn't use
any more stack/data is almost all the cases.
It would also mean that the 'iter' code could always have a pointer
to the base of the original iov[] list.
The lack of which is probably makes the 'revert' code hard?
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-23 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-12 20:40 [PATCH v2 0/2] iter revert problems Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-12 20:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] iov_iter: mark truncated iters Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-12 20:40 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] io_uring: don't retry with truncated iter Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-16 15:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] iter revert problems Jens Axboe
2021-08-21 14:24 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-21 22:25 ` Al Viro
2021-08-21 23:13 ` Jens Axboe
2021-08-23 12:28 ` David Laight [this message]
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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