On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:13:37AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/10/23 8:32?AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> One more comment on this.
>
> > +static int __io_prep_rw_splice_buf(struct io_kiocb *req,
> > + struct io_rw_splice_buf_data *data,
> > + struct file *splice_f,
> > + size_t len,
> > + loff_t splice_off)
> > +{
> > + unsigned flags = req->opcode == IORING_OP_READ_SPLICE_BUF ?
> > + SPLICE_F_KERN_FOR_READ : SPLICE_F_KERN_FOR_WRITE;
> > + struct splice_desc sd = {
> > + .total_len = len,
> > + .flags = flags | SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK | SPLICE_F_KERN_NEED_CONFIRM,
> > + .pos = splice_off,
> > + .u.data = data,
> > + .ignore_sig = true,
> > + };
> > +
> > + return splice_direct_to_actor(splice_f, &sd,
> > + io_splice_buf_direct_actor);
>
> Is this safe? We end up using current->splice_pipe here, which should be
> fine as long as things are left in a sane state after every operation.
> Which they should be, just like a syscall would. Just wanted to make
> sure you've considered that part.
Yeah.
Direct pipe is always left as empty when splice_direct_to_actor()
returns. Pipe buffers(pages) are produced from ->splice_read()
called from splice_direct_to_actor(), and consumed by
io_splice_buf_direct_actor().
If any error is returned, direct pipe is empty too, and we just
need to drop reference of sliced pages by io_rw_cleanup_splice_buf().
Thanks,
Ming
