linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/10] pipe: Add fsync() support [ver #2]

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]

Date:   Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:14:45 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, raven@...maw.net,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/10] pipe: Add fsync() support [ver #2]

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 4:10 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 4:02 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > But I don't think anybody actually _did_ any of that. But that's
> > basically the argument for the three splice operations:
> > write/vmsplice/splice(). Which one you use depends on the lifetime and
> > the source of your data. write() is obviously for the copy case (the
> > source data might not be stable), while splice() is for the "data from
> > another source", and vmsplace() is "data is from stable data in my
> > vm".
>
> Btw, it's really worth noting that "splice()" and friends are from a
> more happy-go-lucky time when we were experimenting with new
> interfaces, and in a day and age when people thought that interfaces
> like "sendpage()" and zero-copy and playing games with the VM was a
> great thing to do.

I suppose a nicer interface might be:


madvise(buf, len, MADV_STABILIZE);

(MADV_STABILIZE is an imaginary operation that write protects the
memory a la fork() but without the copying part.)

vmsplice_safer(fd, ...);

Where vmsplice_safer() is like vmsplice, except that it only works on
write-protected pages.  If you vmsplice_safer() some memory and then
write to the memory, the pipe keeps the old copy.

But this can all be done with memfd and splice, too, I think.


>
> It turns out that VM games are almost always more expensive than just
> copying the data in the first place, but hey, people didn't know that,
> and zero-copy was seen a big deal.
>
> The reality is that almost nobody uses splice and vmsplice at all, and
> they have been a much bigger headache than they are worth. If I could
> go back in time and not do them, I would. But there have been a few
> very special uses that seem to actually like the interfaces.
>
> But it's entirely possible that we should kill vmsplice() (likely by
> just implementing the semantics as "write()") because it's not common
> enough to have the complexity.

I think this is the right choice.

FWIW, the openssl vmsplice() call looks dubious, but I suspect it's
okay because it's vmsplicing to a netlink socket, and the kernel code
on the other end won't read the data after it returns a response.

--Andy