[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJu8OUwWgz1zDVf5@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:51:05 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ahelenia Ziemiańska
<nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
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 0/3+1] fanotify accounting for fs/splice.c
Can you please resend this outside this thread? I really cant't see
what's new or old here if you have a reply-to in the old thread.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 06:55:22PM +0200, Ahelenia Ziemiańska wrote:
> In 1/3 I've applied if/else if/else tree like you said,
> and expounded a bit in the message.
>
> This is less pretty now, however, since it turns out that
> iter_file_splice_write() already marks the out fd as written because it
> writes to it via vfs_iter_write(), and that sent a double notification.
It seems like vfs_iter_write is the wrong level to implement
->splice_write given that the the ->splice_write caller has already
checked f_mode, done the equivalent of rw_verify_area and
should do the fsnotify_modify. I'd suggest to just open code the
relevant parts of vfs_iocb_iter_write in iter_file_splice_write.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists