[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqfHT7Ha/N/wAdcG@ZenIV>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:25:03 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fix short copy handling in copy_mc_pipe_to_iter()
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:28:34PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Dave, could you explain what's going on there? Note that pipe_write()
> does *not* use that thing at all; it's only splice (i.e. ITER_PIPE
> stuff) that is using it.
>
> What's wrong with
> p_occupancy = pipe_occupancy(head, tail);
> if (p_occupancy >= pipe->max_usage)
> return 0;
> else
> return pipe->max_usage - p_occupancy;
>
> which would match the way you are using ->max_usage in pipe_write()
> et.al. Including the use in copy_page_to_iter_pipe(), BTW...
The more I'm looking at that thing, the more it smells like a bug;
it had the same 3 callers since the time it had been introduced.
1) pipe_get_pages(). We are about to try and allocate up to that
many pipe buffers. Allocation (done in push_pipe()) is done only
if we have !pipe_full(pipe->head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage).
It simply won't give you more than max_usage - occupancy.
Your function returns min(ring_size - occupancy, max_usage), which
is always greater than or equal to that (ring_size >= max_usage).
2) pipe_get_pages_alloc(). Same story, same push_pipe() being
called, same "we'll never get that much - it'll hit the limit
first".
3) iov_iter_npages() in case of ITER_PIPE. Again, the value
is bogus - it should not be greater than the amount of pages
we would be able to write there.
AFAICS, 6718b6f855a0 "pipe: Allow pipes to have kernel-reserved slots"
broke it for cases when ring_size != max_usage...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists