On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 03:41:44PM +0300, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 09:22:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Kirill Smelkov <kirr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > However file->f_pos writing is still there and it will bug under race
> > > detector, e.g. under KTSAN because read and write can be running
> > > simultaneously. Maybe it is not only race bug, but also a bit of
> > > slowdown as read and write code paths write to the same memory thus
> > > needing inter-cpu synchronization if read and write handlers are on
> > > different cpus. However for this I'm not sure.
> >
> > I doubt it's noticeable, but it would probably be good to simply not
> > do the write for streams.
> >
> > That *could* be done somewhat similarly, with just changing th address
> > to be updated, or course.
> >
> > In fact, we *used* to (long ago) pass in the address of "file->f_pos"
> > itself to the low-level read/write routines. We then changed it to do
> > that indirection through a local copy of pos (and
> > file_pos_read/file_pos_write) because we didn't do the proper locking,
> > so different read/write versions could mess with each other (and with
> > lseek).
> >
> > But one of the things that commit 9c225f2655e36 ("vfs: atomic f_pos
> > accesses as per POSIX") did was to add the proper locking at least for
> > the cases that we care about deeply, so we *could* say that we have
> > three cases:
> >
> > - FMODE_ATOMIC_POS: properly locked,
> > - FMODE_STREAM: no pos at all
> > - otherwise a "mostly don't care - don't mix!"
> >
> > and so we could go back to not copying the pos at all, and instead do
> > something like
> >
> > loff_t *ppos = f.file->f_mode & FMODE_STREAM ? NULL : &file->f_pos;
> > ret = vfs_write(f.file, buf, count, ppos);
> >
> > and perhaps have a long-term plan to try to get rid of the "don't mix"
> > case entirely (ie "if you use f_pos, then we'll do the proper
> > locking")
> >
> > (The above is obviously surrounded by the fdget_pos()/fdput_pos() that
> > implements the locking decision).
>
> Ok Linus, thanks for feedback. Please consider applying or queueing the
> following patches.
Resending those patches one by one in separate emails, if maybe 2
patches inline was problematic to handle...
