Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Marco Stornelli >> From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx> >> If a filesystem in the file operations specifies for read and write >> operations only do_sync_read and do_sync_write without init aio_read and >> aio_write, there will be a kernel oops, because the vfs code check the >> presence of (to read for example) read OR aio_read method, then it calls read >> if it's pointer is not null. It's not sufficient because if the read function >> is actually a do_sync_read, it calls aio_read but without checking the >> presence. I think a BUG_ON check can be more useful. > > Instead of doing a BUG_ON() why can't we simply fall back to the > generic_aio functions since most of the fs tend to do so as below. > --- a/fs/read_write.c > - ret = filp->f_op->aio_read(&kiocb, &iov, 1, kiocb.ki_pos); > + if (filp->f_op->aio_read) > + ret = filp->f_op->aio_read(&kiocb, &iov, 1, kiocb.ki_pos); > + else > + ret = generic_file_aio_read(&kiocb, &iov, 1, kiocb.ki_pos); Why can't the file system registration code set filp->f_op->aio_read to generic_file_aio_read? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
