[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPx28cEvrVl6YrDk@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 20:24:17 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] iov_iter: Introduce iov_iter_fault_in_writeable
helper
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 12:52:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> ...
> > + if (fault_in_user_pages(start, len, true) != len)
> > + return -EFAULT;
>
> Looking at this once more, I think this is likely wrong.
>
> Why?
>
> Because any user can/should only care about at least *part* of the
> area being writable.
>
> Imagine that you're doing a large read. If the *first* page is
> writable, you should still return the partial read, not -EFAULT.
Agreed.
> So I think the code needs to return 0 if _any_ fault was successful.
s/any/the first/...
The same goes for fault-in for read, of course; I've a half-baked conversion
to such semantics (-EFAULT vs. 0; precise length is unreliable anyway,
especially if you have sub-page failure areas), need to finish and post
it...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists