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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:58:37 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>, Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@...il.com>, Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, "Schumaker, Bryan" <Bryan.Schumaker@...app.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>, Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> Subject: Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading On Tue 01-10-13 12:58:17, Zach Brown wrote: > > - app calls splice(from, 0, to, 0, SIZE_MAX) > > 1) VFS calls ->direct_splice(from, 0, to, 0, SIZE_MAX) > > 1.a) fs reflinks the whole file in a jiffy and returns the size of the file > > 1 b) fs does copy offload of, say, 64MB and returns 64M > > 2) VFS does page copy of, say, 1MB and returns 1MB > > - app calls splice(from, X, to, X, SIZE_MAX) where X is the new offset > > (It's not SIZE_MAX. It's MAX_RW_COUNT. INT_MAX with some > PAGE_CACHE_SIZE rounding noise. For fear of weird corners of fs code > paths that still use int, one assumes.) > > > The point is: the app is always doing the same (incrementing offset > > with the return value from splice) and the kernel can decide what is > > the best size it can service within a single uninterruptible syscall. > > > > Wouldn't that work? > > It seems like it should, if people are willing to allow splice() to > return partial counts. Quite a lot of IO syscalls technically do return > partial counts today if you try to write > MAX_RW_COUNT :). Yes. Also POSIX says that application must handle such case for read & write. But in practice programmers are lazy. > But returning partial counts on the order of a handful of megs that the > file systems make up as the point of diminishing returns is another > thing entirely. I can imagine people being anxious about that. > > I guess we'll find out! Return 4 KB once in a while to screw up buggy applications from the start :-p Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists