[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxj3j7gMJSojkdfe+8fQrKtJtY7wBY1UOHtQUuQ_WMjObA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:10:09 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Ahelenia Ziemiańska
<nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chung-Chiang Cheng <cccheng@...ology.com>, ltp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] splice: always fsnotify_access(in),
fsnotify_modify(out) on success
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 7:55 PM Ahelenia Ziemiańska
<nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz> wrote:
>
> The current behaviour caused an asymmetry where some write APIs
> (write, sendfile) would notify the written-to/read-from objects,
> but splice wouldn't.
>
> This affected userspace which uses inotify, most notably coreutils
> tail -f, to monitor pipes.
> If the pipe buffer had been filled by a splice-family function:
> * tail wouldn't know and thus wouldn't service the pipe, and
> * all writes to the pipe would block because it's full,
> thus service was denied.
> (For the particular case of tail -f this could be worked around
> with ---disable-inotify.)
>
> Fixes: 983652c69199 ("splice: report related fsnotify events")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/jbyihkyk5dtaohdwjyivambb2gffyjs3dodpofafnkkunxq7bu@jngkdxx65pux/t/#u
> Link: https://bugs.debian.org/1039488
> Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>
> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
> ---
> fs/splice.c | 31 ++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
> index 3e06611d19ae..e16f4f032d2f 100644
> --- a/fs/splice.c
> +++ b/fs/splice.c
> @@ -1154,10 +1154,8 @@ long do_splice(struct file *in, loff_t *off_in, struct file *out,
> if ((in->f_flags | out->f_flags) & O_NONBLOCK)
> flags |= SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK;
>
> - return splice_pipe_to_pipe(ipipe, opipe, len, flags);
> - }
> -
> - if (ipipe) {
> + ret = splice_pipe_to_pipe(ipipe, opipe, len, flags);
> + } else if (ipipe) {
> if (off_in)
> return -ESPIPE;
> if (off_out) {
> @@ -1182,18 +1180,15 @@ long do_splice(struct file *in, loff_t *off_in, struct file *out,
> ret = do_splice_from(ipipe, out, &offset, len, flags);
> file_end_write(out);
>
> - if (ret > 0)
> - fsnotify_modify(out);
> -
> if (!off_out)
> out->f_pos = offset;
> else
> *off_out = offset;
>
> - return ret;
> - }
> -
> - if (opipe) {
> + // splice_write-> already marked out
> + // as modified via vfs_iter_write()
> + goto noaccessout;
> + } else if (opipe) {
> if (off_out)
> return -ESPIPE;
> if (off_in) {
> @@ -1209,18 +1204,20 @@ long do_splice(struct file *in, loff_t *off_in, struct file *out,
>
> ret = splice_file_to_pipe(in, opipe, &offset, len, flags);
>
> - if (ret > 0)
> - fsnotify_access(in);
> -
> if (!off_in)
> in->f_pos = offset;
> else
> *off_in = offset;
> + } else
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> - return ret;
> - }
> + if (ret > 0)
> + fsnotify_modify(out);
> +noaccessout:
> + if (ret > 0)
> + fsnotify_access(in);
>
As I wrote, I don't like this special case.
I prefer that we generate double IN_MODIFY than
having to maintain unreadable code.
Let's see what Jan has to say about this.
Thanks,
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists