On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:03 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:45:41PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 07:33:57AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why are people trying to use copy_file_range on simple /proc and /sys > > > > files in the first place? They can not seek (well most can not), so > > > > that feels like a "oh look, a new syscall, let's use it everywhere!" > > > > problem that userspace should not do. > > > > > > This may have been covered elsewhere, but it's not that people are > > > saying "let's use copy_file_range on files in /proc." It's that the > > > Go language standard library provides an interface to operating system > > > files. When Go code uses the standard library function io.Copy to > > > copy the contents of one open file to another open file, then on Linux > > > kernels 5.3 and greater the Go standard library will use the > > > copy_file_range system call. That seems to be exactly what > > > copy_file_range is intended for. Unfortunately it appears that when > > > people writing Go code open a file in /proc and use io.Copy the > > > contents to another open file, copy_file_range does nothing and > > > reports success. There isn't anything on the copy_file_range man page > > > explaining this limitation, and there isn't any documented way to know > > > that the Go standard library should not use copy_file_range on certain > > > files. > > > > But, is this a bug in the kernel in that the syscall being made is not > > working properly, or a bug in that Go decided to do this for all types > > of files not knowing that some types of files can not handle this? > > > > If the kernel has always worked this way, I would say that Go is doing > > the wrong thing here. If the kernel used to work properly, and then > > changed, then it's a regression on the kernel side. > > > > So which is it? > > Both Al Viro and myself have said "copy file range is not a generic > method for copying data between two file descriptors". It is a > targetted solution for *regular files only* on filesystems that store > persistent data and can accelerate the data copy in some way (e.g. > clone, server side offload, hardware offlead, etc). It is not > intended as a copy mechanism for copying data from one random file > descriptor to another. > > The use of it as a general file copy mechanism in the Go system > library is incorrect and wrong. It is a userspace bug. Userspace > has done the wrong thing, userspace needs to be fixed. OK, we'll take it out. I'll just make one last plea that I think that copy_file_range could be much more useful if there were some way that a program could know whether it would work or not. It's pretty unfortunate that we can't use it in the Go standard library, or, indeed, in any general purpose code, in any language, that is intended to support arbitrary file names. To be pedantically clear, I'm not saying that copy_file_range should work on all file systems. I'm only saying that on file systems for which it doesn't work it should fail rather than silently returning success without doing anything. Ian
