David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On the face of it that passes a largely uninitialised 'struct msghdr'
> to cifs_readv_from_socket() in order to pass an iov_iter.
> That seems to be asking for trouble.
>
> If cifs_readv_from_socket() only needs the iov_iter then wouldn't
> it be better to do the wrapper the other way around?
> (Probably as an inline function)
> Something like:
>
> int
> cifs_readv_from_socket(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct msghdr *smb_msg)
> {
> return cifs_read_iter_from_socket(server, &smb_msg->msg_iter, smb_msg->msg_iter.count);
> }
>
> and then changing cifs_readv_from_socket() to just use the iov_iter.
Yeah. And smbd_recv() only cares about the iterator too.
> I'm also not 100% sure that taking a copy of an iov_iter is a good idea.
It shouldn't matter as the only problematic iterator is ITER_PIPE (advancing
that has side effects) - and splice_read is handled specially by patch 4. The
problem with splice_read with the way cifs works is that it likes to subdivide
its read/write requests across multiple reqs and then subsubdivide them if
certain types of failure occur. But you can't do that with ITER_PIPE.
I build an ITER_BVEC from ITER_PIPE, ITER_UBUF and ITER_IOVEC in the top
levels with pins inserted as appropriate and hand the ITER_BVEC down. For
user-backed iterators it has to be done this way because the I/O may get
shuffled off to a different thread.
Reqs can then just copy the BVEC/XARRAY/KVEC and narrow the region because the
master request at the top does holds the vector list and the top cifs level or
the caller above the vfs (eg. sys_execve) does what is necessary to retain the
pages.
David
