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  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, 19 Sep 2014 10:42:04 -0400
From:	Jonathan Corbet <>
To:	Milosz Tanski <>
	Christoph Hellwig <>,,,
	Mel Gorman <>,
	Volker Lendecke <>,
	Tejun Heo <>, Jeff Moyer <>,
	Theodore Ts'o <>,
	Al Viro <>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/5] Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:20:45 +0000
Milosz Tanski <> wrote:

> This patcheset introduces an ability to perform a non-blocking read from
> regular files in buffered IO mode. This works by only for those filesystems
> that have data in the page cache.
> It does this by introducing new syscalls new syscalls readv2/writev2 and
> preadv2/pwritev2. These new syscalls behave like the network sendmsg, recvmsg
> syscalls that accept an extra flag argument (O_NONBLOCK).

So I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this approach so I can
explain it to others.  When you decided to add these syscalls, you
ruled out some other approaches that have been out there for a while.
I assume that, before these syscalls can be merged, people will want to
understand why you did that.  So I'll ask the dumb questions:

 - Non-blocking I/O has long been supported with a well-understood set
   of operations - O_NONBLOCK and fcntl().  Why do we need a different
   mechanism here - one that's only understood in the context of
   buffered file I/O?  I assume you didn't want to implement support
   for poll() and all that, but is that a good enough reason to add a
   new Linux-specific non-blocking I/O technique?

 - Patches adding fincore() have been around since at least 2010; see,
   for example, or  It seems this could be used in
   favor of four new read() syscalls; is there a reason it's not
   suitable for your use case?

 - Patches adding buffered support for AIO have been around since at
   least 2003 -, for example.  I guess
   I don't really have to ask why you don't want to take that
   approach! :)  

Apologies for my ignorance here; that's what I get for hanging around
with the MM folks at LSFMM, I guess.  Anyway, I suspect I'm not the
only one who would appreciate any background you could give here.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists