[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170411234820.GJ29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:48:21 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iov_iter_pipe warning.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 07:34:37PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:28:42AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:25:02PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > > ffffffff812b3130 T generic_splice_sendpage
> > >
> > > This one spat out all by itself.
> >
> > No need to print ->f_op for that one - can be only socket_file_ops. Now,
> > the address family of that socket would be interesting...
>
> Turned out to be..
>
> ->splice_write = ffffffff812b2b70 sd->u.file->f_op=ffffffffa02e0980
> $ grep ffffffffa02e0980 /proc/kallsyms
> ffffffffa02e0980 r nfs4_file_operations [nfsv4]
Lovely... So now we get it not only on splice to socket, but on
splice to regular file on NFS as well? That makes lying splice_read()
more likely...
> > Interesting... How about
> > if (res > 0 && pipe == current->splice_pipe) {
> > int idx = pipe->curbuf;
> > int n = pipe->nrbufs;
> > size_t size = 0;
> > while (n--) {
> > size += pipe->bufs[idx++].len;
> > if (idx == pipe->buffers)
> > idx = 0;
> > }
> > WARN_ON(len != res);
> > }
> > just before the return in default_file_splice_read()? WARN_ON_ONCE,
> > perhaps, to avoid cascades...
>
> Sure, up next. Gimme an hour, it seems to be reproducing fairly quickly
> tonight.
Makes sense - now it screams on non-empty pipe in the beginning of loop
body; originally it was only for _full_ pipe (i.e. for leftovers from
several iterations filling the entire thing up), which should've been
harder to trigger...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists