On Fri 27-01-23 02:02:31, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:44:08AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 26.01.23 23:36, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:59:36PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:16:20PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * iov_iter_extract_will_pin - Indicate how pages from the iterator will be retained
> > > > > + * @iter: The iterator
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Examine the iterator and indicate by returning true or false as to how, if
> > > > > + * at all, pages extracted from the iterator will be retained by the extraction
> > > > > + * function.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * %true indicates that the pages will have a pin placed in them that the
> > > > > + * caller must unpin. This is must be done for DMA/async DIO to force fork()
> > > > > + * to forcibly copy a page for the child (the parent must retain the original
> > > > > + * page).
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * %false indicates that no measures are taken and that it's up to the caller
> > > > > + * to retain the pages.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static inline bool iov_iter_extract_will_pin(const struct iov_iter *iter)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + return user_backed_iter(iter);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Wait a sec; why would we want a pin for pages we won't be modifying?
> > > > A reference - sure, but...
> > >
> > > After having looked through the earlier iterations of the patchset -
> > > sorry, but that won't fly for (at least) vmsplice(). There we can't
> > > pin those suckers;
> >
> > We'll need a way to pass FOLL_LONGTERM to pin_user_pages_fast() to handle
> > such long-term pinning as vmsplice() needs. But the release path (unpin)
> > will be the same.
>
> Umm... Are you saying that if the source area contains DAX mmaps, vmsplice()
> from it will fail?
Yes, that's the plan. Because as you wrote elsewhere, it is otherwise too easy
to lock up operations such as truncate(2) on DAX filesystems.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
