linux-kernel - Re: 4.9.0 regression in pipe-backed iov

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:32:37 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Alan J. Wylie" <alan@...ie.me.uk>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 4.9.0 regression in pipe-backed iov_iter with systemd-nspawn

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> PS: 'size' argument of iov_iter_advance() is the second "some" in the
> above - we tell it how much we want to advance by and everything past
> that point is, in case of PIPE_ITER, discarded.

Ok. The naming threw me. It would be more logical to call that
operation a "truncate", not advance.

I notice that one of the comments in fs/splice.c actually says that:

        iov_iter_advance(&to, copied);  /* truncates and discards */

but yes, I see what it's trying to do now.

Ugh. I still think your patch is butt-ugly, and the index comparisons
make me nervous, but..

Let's see if Alan's issue actually goes away with your later patch.

             Linus