On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:38 AM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:50:22PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> > copy_file_range (which calls generic_copy_file_checks) uses the
> > inode file size to adjust the copy count parameter. This breaks
> > with special filesystems like procfs/sysfs, where the file size
> > appears to be zero, but content is actually returned when a read
> > operation is performed.
> >
> > This commit ignores the source file size, and makes copy_file_range
> > match the end of file behaviour documented in POSIX's "read",
> > where 0 is returned to mark EOF. This would allow "cp" and other
> > standard tools to make use of copy_file_range with the exact same
> > behaviour as they had in the past.
> >
> > Fixes: 96e6e8f4a68d ("vfs: add missing checks to copy_file_range")
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Nack.
Thanks Dave and Al for the detailed explanations.
>
> As I've explained, this is intentional and bypassing it is not a
> work around for enabling cfr on filesystems that produce ephemeral,
> volatile read-once data using seq-file pipes that masquerade as
> regular files with zero size. These files are behaving like pipes
> and only work because the VFS has to support read() and friends from
> pipes that don't publish the amount of data they contain to the VFS
> inode.
>
> copy_file_range() does not support such behaviour.
>
> copy_file_range() -writes- data, so we have to check that those
> writes do not extend past boundaries that the destination inode
> imposes on the operation. e.g. maximum offset limits, whether the
> ranges overlap in the same file, etc.
>
> Hence we need to know how much data there is present to copy before
> we can check if it is safe to perform the -write- of the data we are
> going to read. Hence we cannot safely support data sources that
> cannot tell us how much data is present before we start the copy
> operation.
>
> IOWs, these source file EOF restrictions are required by the write
> side of copy_file_range(), not the read side.
>
> > ---
> > This can be reproduced with this simple test case:
> > #define _GNU_SOURCE
> > #include <fcntl.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > #include <unistd.h>
> >
> > int
> > main(int argc, char **argv)
> > {
> > int fd_in, fd_out;
> > loff_t ret;
> >
> > fd_in = open("/proc/version", O_RDONLY);
> > fd_out = open("version", O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC, 0644);
> >
> > do {
> > ret = copy_file_range(fd_in, NULL, fd_out, NULL, 1024, 0);
> > printf("%d bytes copied\n", (int)ret);
> > } while (ret > 0);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Without this patch, `version` output file is empty, and no bytes
> > are copied:
> > 0 bytes copied
>
> $ ls -l /proc/version
> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 20 17:25 /proc/version
> $
>
> It's a zero length file.
>
> sysfs does this just fine - it's regular files have a size of
> at least PAGE_SIZE rather than zero, and so copy_file_range works
> just fine on them:
>
> $ ls -l /sys/block/nvme0n1/capability
> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jan 27 08:41 /sys/block/nvme0n1/capability
> $ cat /sys/block/nvme0n1/capability
> 50
> $ xfs_io -f -c "copy_range -s 0 -d 0 -l 4096 /sys/block/nvme0n1/capability" /tmp/foo
> $ sudo cat /tmp/foo
> 50
>
> And the behaviour is exactly as you'd expect a read() loop to copy
> the file to behave:
>
> openat(AT_FDCWD, "/tmp/foo", O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0600) = 3
> ....
> openat(AT_FDCWD, "/sys/block/nvme0n1/capability", O_RDONLY) = 4
> copy_file_range(4, [0], 3, [0], 4096, 0) = 3
> copy_file_range(4, [3], 3, [3], 4093, 0) = 0
> close(4)
>
> See? Inode size of 4096 means there's a maximum of 4kB of data that
> can be read from this file. copy_file_range() now behaves exactly
> as read() would, returning a short copy and then 0 bytes to indicate
> EOF.
Unless the content happens to be larger than PAGE_SIZE, then
copy_file_range would only copy the beginning of the file. And as Al
explained, this will still break in case of short writes.
>
> If you want ephemeral data pipes masquerading as regular files to
> work with copy_file_range, then the filesystem implementation needs
> to provide the VFS with a data size that indicates the maximum
> amount of data that the pipe can produce in a continuous read loop.
> Otherwise we cannot validate the range of the write we may be asked
> to perform...
>
> > Under the hood, Go 1.15 uses `copy_file_range` syscall to optimize the
> > copy operation. However, that fails to copy any content when the input
> > file is from sysfs/tracefs, with an apparent size of 0 (but there is
> > still content when you `cat` it, of course).
>
> Libraries using copy_file_range() must be prepared for it to fail
> and fall back to normal copy mechanisms.
How is userspace suppose to detect that? (checking for 0 file size
won't work with the example above)
> Of course, with these
> special zero length files that contain ephemeral data, userspace can't
> actually tell that they contain data from userspace using stat(). So
> as far as userspace is concerned, copy_file_range() correctly
> returned zero bytes copied from a zero byte long file and there's
> nothing more to do.
>
> This zero length file behaviour is, fundamentally, a kernel
> filesystem implementation bug, not a copy_file_range() bug.
Okay, so, based on this and Al's reply, I see 2 things we can do:
1. Go should probably not use copy_file_range in a common library
function, as I don't see any easy way to detect this scenario
currently (detect 0 size? sure, but that won't work with the example
you provide above). And the man page should document this behaviour
more explicitly to prevent further incorrect usage.
2. Can procfs/sysfs/debugfs and friends explicitly prevent usage of
copy_file_range? (based on Al's reply, there seems to be no way to
implement it correctly as seeking in such files will not work in case
of short writes)
Thanks,
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
