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]
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:56:04 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Matt Whitlock <kernel@...twhitlock.name>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...ck.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] splice: Fix corruption in data spliced to pipe

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 08:55, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Matt Whitlock, Matthew Wilcox and Dave Chinner are of the opinion that data
> in the pipe must not be seen to change and that if it does, this is a bug.

I'm not convinced.

The whole *point* of vmsplice (and splicing from a file) is the zero-copy.

If you don't want the zero-copy, then you should use just "write()".

So I disagree violently. This is not a bug unless you can point to
some other correctness issues.

The "stableness" of the data is literally the *only* difference
between vmsplice() and write().

> Whilst this does allow the code to be somewhat simplified, it also results
> in a loss of performance: stolen pages have to be reloaded in accessed
> again; more data has to be copied.

No. It literally results in a loss of THE WHOLE POINT of vmsplice().

                    Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ