linux-kernel - Re: [POC RFC 0/3] splice(2) support for io

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]

Message-ID: <8316dfa9-9210-3402-a6c3-4889b6bbdb49@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 20:30:13 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [POC RFC 0/3] splice(2) support for io_uring

On 1/21/20 8:11 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 22/01/2020 04:55, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/21/20 5:05 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> It works well for basic cases, but there is still work to be done. E.g.
>>> it misses @hash_reg_file checks for the second (output) file. Anyway,
>>> there are some questions I want to discuss:
>>>
>>> - why sqe->len is __u32? Splice uses size_t, and I think it's better
>>> to have something wider (e.g. u64) for fututre use. That's the story
>>> behind added sqe->splice_len.
>>
>> IO operations in Linux generally are INT_MAX, so the u32 is plenty big.
>> That's why I chose it. For this specifically, if you look at splice:
>>
>> 	if (unlikely(len > MAX_RW_COUNT))
>> 		len = MAX_RW_COUNT;
>>
>> so anything larger is truncated anyway.
> 
> Yeah, I saw this one, but that was rather an argument for the future.
> It's pretty easy to transfer more than 4GB with sg list, but that
> would be the case for splice.

I don't see this changing, ever, basically. And probably not a big deal,
if you want to do more than 2GB worth of IO, you simply splice them over
multiple commands. At those sizes, the overhead there is negligible.

>>> - it requires 2 fds, and it's painful. Currently file managing is done
>>> by common path (e.g. io_req_set_file(), __io_req_aux_free()). I'm
>>> thinking to make each opcode function handle file grabbing/putting
>>> themself with some helpers, as it's done in the patch for splice's
>>> out-file.
>>>     1. Opcode handler knows, whether it have/needs a file, and thus
>>>        doesn't need extra checks done in common path.
>>>     2. It will be more consistent with splice.
>>> Objections? Ideas?
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me, but always easier to judge in patch form :-)
>>
>>> - do we need offset pointers with fallback to file->f_pos? Or is it
>>> enough to have offset value. Jens, I remember you added the first
>>> option somewhere, could you tell the reasoning?
>>
>> I recently added support for -1/cur position, which splice also uses. So
>> you should be fine with that.
>>
> 
> I always have been thinking about it as a legacy from old days, and
> one of the problems of posix. It's not hard to count it in the
> userspace especially in C++ or high-level languages, and is just
> another obstacle for having a performant API. So, I'd rather get rid
> of it here. But is there any reasons against?

It's not always trivial to do in libraries, or programming languages
even. That's why it exists. I would not expect anyone to use it outside
of that.

-- 
Jens Axboe