[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200730070329.GB18653@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:03:29 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/23] fs: default to generic_file_splice_read for
files having ->read_iter
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:05:44AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:48:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > If a file implements the ->read_iter method, the iter based splice read
> > works and is always preferred over the ->read based one. Use it by
> > default in do_splice_to and remove all the direct assignment of
> > generic_file_splice_read to file_operations.
>
> The worst problem here is the assumption that all ->read_iter() instances
> will take pipe-backed destination; that's _not_ automatically true.
> In particular, it's almost certainly false for tap_read_iter() (as
> well as tun_chr_read_iter() in IFF_VNET_HDR case).
>
> Other potentially interesting cases: cuse and hugetlbfs.
>
> But in any case, that blind assertion ("iter based splice read works")
> really needs to be backed by something.
I think we need to fix that in the instances, as we really expect
->splice_read to just work instead of the caller knowing what could
work and what might not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists