linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 16/19] iomap: Add done_before argument to iomap_dio

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: <20210903184755.GC9892@magnolia>
Date:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:47:55 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/19] iomap: Add done_before argument to iomap_dio_rw

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 03:35:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:32 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > No, because you totally ignored the second question:
> >
> > If the directio operation succeeds even partially and the PARTIAL flag
> > is set, won't that push the iov iter ahead by however many bytes
> > completed?
> >
> > We already finished the IO for the first page, so the second attempt
> > should pick up where it left off, i.e. the second page.
> 
> Darrick, I think you're missing the point.
> 
> It's the *return*value* that is the issue, not the iovec.
> 
> The iovec is updated as you say. But the return value from the async
> part is - without Andreas' patch - only the async part of it.
> 
> With Andreas' patch, the async part will now return the full return
> value, including the part that was done synchronously.
> 
> And the return value is returned from that async part, which somehow
> thus needs to know what predated it.

Aha, that was the missing piece, thank you.  I'd forgotten that
iomap_dio_complete_work calls iocb->ki_complete with the return value of
iomap_dio_complete, which means that the iomap_dio has to know if there
was a previous transfer that stopped short so that the caller could do
more work and resubmit.

> Could that pre-existing part perhaps be saved somewhere else? Very
> possibly. That 'struct iomap_dio' addition is kind of ugly. So maybe
> what Andreas did could be done differently.

There's probably a more elegant way for the ->ki_complete functions to
figure out how much got transferred, but that's sufficiently ugly and
invasive so as not to be suitable for a bug fix.

> But I think you guys are arguing past each other.

Yes, definitely.

--D

> 
>            Linus