linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC 0/3] simple copy offloading system call

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1428703236-24735-1-git-send-email-zab@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:00:33 -0700
From:	Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3] simple copy offloading system call

Hello everyone!

Here's my current attempt at the most basic system call interface for
offloading copying between files.  The system call and vfs function
are relatively light wrappers around the file_operation method that
does the heavy lifting.

There was interest at LSF in getting the basic infrastructure merged
before worrying about adding behavioural flags and more complicated
implementations.  This series only offers a refactoring of the btrfs
clone ioctl as an example of an implementation of the file
copy_file_range method.

I've added support for copy_file_range() to xfs_io in xfsprogs and
have the start of an xfstest that tests the system call.  I'll send
those to fstests@.

So how does this look?

Do we want to merge this and let the NFS and block XCOPY patches add
their changes when they're ready?

- z

--
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/