linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] [PATCH v4 3/3] syscalls/pipe2_03: Add new test for pipe2 O

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: <CAHk-=wg7u4AjZQd49VjrZXikDMfK-HchOKHYqoUFwcXjsbJ3XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:45:15 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com>
Cc:     Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@...fujitsu.com>,
        LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v4 3/3] syscalls/pipe2_03: Add new test for pipe2
 O_DIRECT flag

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 4:59 AM Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> From kernel code seems you are right. The pipe indeed takes use of PAGE_SIZE(ppc64le: 64kB) to split the writes data in the packetized mode (marked by O_DIRECT). But in the manual page, O_DIRECT indicates us the PIPE_BUF is the correct atomic unit.

The manual is correct.

PIPE_BUF is the size we _guarantee_ can be used atomically.

The fact that in practice we do have bigger buffers on some platforms
is an implementation detail.

Yes, that implementation detail can be visible, but basically any test
code that tries to test for "what if we use a bigger bug that
PIPE_BUF" is buggy. It's simply not guaranteed to work any more.

O_DIRECT is kind of immaterial, except it's just one of those things
where the atomic size is slightly more visible. But basically,
packetized pipes with bigger packets than PIPE_BUF is random behavior.
It may work. It may not.

                Linus