linux-kernel - Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] nfs: add support for splice writes

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: <1240230224.8073.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:23:44 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de>
Cc:	Masahiro Tamori <masahiro.tamori@...il.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] nfs: add support for splice writes

On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:09 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
> Hi Trond,
> 
> Do you think this patch is OK? Can this be considered for merging?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Masahiro Tamori wrote:
> > Hello Suresh and Mathieu,
> > 
> > 2009/4/2 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de>:
> >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>> * Suresh Jayaraman (sjayaraman@...e.de) wrote:
> >>>> This patch attempts to add splice writes support. In essence, it just
> >>>> calls generic_file_splice_write() after doing a little sanity check.
> >>>> This would allow LTTng users that are using NFS to store trace data.
> >>>> There could be more applications that could be benefitted too.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have tested this using the Jens' test program and have found no
> >>>> real issues. The test program is inlined below:
> >>>>
> >>> There is just a small checkpatch nit that I'll fix directly in place in
> >>> the LTTng tree.
> >>>
> >>> WARNING: %Ld/%Lu are not-standard C, use %lld/%llu
> >>> #93: FILE: fs/nfs/file.c:564:
> >>> +   dprintk("NFS splice_write(%s/%s, %lu@%Lu)\n",
> >>>
> >>> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 42 lines checked
> >>>
> >> Yes, I noticed it. There are quite a few places in nfs code where we
> >> happened to use that (that doesn't imply that it shouldn't be fixed), so
> >> I thought it's OK.
> >>
> >>> That's great ! I'll pull it in the LTTng tree so my users can try it.
> >>> They currently cannot write LTTng traces to NFS mounts anyway.
> >> Yes, please report the test results. Would appreciate it very much.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> > 
> > Thank you for creating a patch !!
> > 
> > I tested it, and it works fine.
> > 
> > My environment is following,
> > LTTV 0.12.10
> > LTTng 0.100
> > LTT Control 0.65
> > Kernles 2.6.29
> > 
> > LTTng version is old now, but the test is passed on ARM11 target.
> > 
> > Furthermore, I run the splice test and the test is passed too.
> > The test code is copied from
> > http://kzk9.net/blog/2007/05/splice2.html
> > (Japanese page)
> > 
> > Thanks all people who commented this issue.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Masahiro Tamori
> > 
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
> >>>> index 90f292b..13d6a00 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
> >>>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static ssize_t nfs_file_splice_read(struct file *filp, loff_t *ppos,
> >>>>                   size_t count, unsigned int flags);
> >>>> static ssize_t nfs_file_read(struct kiocb *, const struct iovec *iov,
> >>>>               unsigned long nr_segs, loff_t pos);
> >>>> +static ssize_t nfs_file_splice_write(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> >>>> +                  struct file *filp, loff_t *ppos,
> >>>> +                  size_t count, unsigned int flags);
> >>>> static ssize_t nfs_file_write(struct kiocb *, const struct iovec *iov,
> >>>>               unsigned long nr_segs, loff_t pos);
> >>>> static int nfs_file_flush(struct file *, fl_owner_t id);
> >>>> @@ -76,6 +79,7 @@ const struct file_operations nfs_file_operations = {
> >>>>   .lock      = nfs_lock,
> >>>>   .flock     = nfs_flock,
> >>>>   .splice_read  = nfs_file_splice_read,
> >>>> +  .splice_write  = nfs_file_splice_write,
> >>>>   .check_flags  = nfs_check_flags,
> >>>>   .setlease    = nfs_setlease,
> >>>> };
> >>>> @@ -550,6 +554,26 @@ out_swapfile:
> >>>>   goto out;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static ssize_t nfs_file_splice_write(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> >>>> +                 struct file *filp, loff_t *ppos,
> >>>> +                 size_t count, unsigned int flags)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +  struct dentry *dentry = filp->f_path.dentry;
> >>>> +  struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +  dprintk("NFS splice_write(%s/%s, %lu@%Lu)\n",
> >>>> +      dentry->d_parent->d_name.name, dentry->d_name.name,
> >>>> +      (unsigned long) count, (unsigned long long) *ppos);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +  if (IS_SWAPFILE(inode)) {
> >>>> +      printk(KERN_INFO "NFS: attempt to write to active swap"
> >>>> +          "file!\n");
> >>>> +      return -EBUSY;
> >>>> +  }

I don't know that we really need this. We should sweep through the NFS
code and kill all those IS_SWAPFILE() thingys. Or at least #define
IS_SWAPFILE(a) (0)
...

> >>>> +
> >>>> +  return generic_file_splice_write(pipe, filp, ppos, count, flags);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
> >>>> {
> >>>>   struct inode *inode = filp->f_mapping->host;
> >>>>

Otherwise it looks fine...



--
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/