linux-kernel - Re: Out of order read() completion and buffer filling beyond returned amount

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: <CAHk-=wjQG5HnwQD98z8de1EvRzDnebZxh=gQUVTKCn0DOp7PQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jan 2022 12:19:29 +0200
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-cachefs@...hat.com, CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Out of order read() completion and buffer filling beyond returned amount

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:57 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have an opinion on whether it's permissible for a filesystem to write
> into the read() buffer beyond the amount it claims to return, though still
> within the specified size of the buffer?

I'm pretty sure that would seriously violate POSIX in the general
case, and maybe even break some programs that do fancy buffer
management (ie I could imagine some circular buffer thing that expects
any "unwritten" ('unread'?) parts to stay with the old contents)

That said, that's for generic 'read()' cases for things like tty's or
pipes etc that can return partial reads in the first place.

If it's a regular file, then any partial read *already* violates
POSIX, and nobody sane would do any such buffer management because
it's supposed to be a 'can't happen' thing.

And since you mention DIO, that's doubly true, and is already outside
basic POSIX, and has already violated things like "all or nothing"
rules for visibility of writes-vs-reads (which admittedly most Linux
filesystems have violated even outside of DIO, since the strictest
reading of the rules are incredibly nasty anyway). But filesystems
like XFS which took some of the strict rules more seriously already
ignored them for DIO, afaik.

So I suspect you're fine. Buffered reads might care more, but even
there the whole "you can't really validly have partial reads anyway"
thing is a bigger violation to begin with.

With DIO, I suspect nobody cares about _those_ kinds of semantic
details. People who use DIO tend to care primarily about performance -
it's why they use it, after all - and are probably more than happy to
be lax about other rules.

But maybe somebody would prefer to have a mount option to specify just
how out-of-spec things can be (ie like the traditional old nfs 'intr'
thing). If only for testing, and for 'in case some odd app breaks'

                Linus