linux-kernel - Re: [rfc patch 3/4] splice: remove confirm from pipe_buf

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806241129590.2926@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
cc:	jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [rfc patch 3/4] splice: remove confirm from
 pipe_buf_operations



On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
> OK.  But currently we have an implementation that
> 
>  1) doesn't do any of this, unless readahead is disabled

Sure. But removing even the conceptual support? Not a good idea.

> And in addition, splice-in and splice-out can return a short count or
> even zero count if the filesystem invalidates the cached pages during
> the splicing (data became stale for example).  Are these the right
> semantics?  I'm not sure.

What does that really have with splice() and removing the features? Why 
don't you just fix that issue? 

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/