On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 8:23 AM Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 3:11 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:04 PM Olga Kornievskaia > > <olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Relax the condition that input files must be from the same > > > file systems. > > > > > > Add checks that input parameters adhere semantics. > > > > > > If no copy_file_range() support is found, then do generic > > > checks for the unsupported page cache ranges, LFS, limits, > > > and clear setuid/setgid if not running as root before calling > > > do_splice_direct(). Update atime,ctime,mtime afterwards. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > This patch is either going to bring you down or make you stronger ;-) > > > > This is not how its done. Behavior change and refactoring mixed into > > one patch is wrong for several reasons. And when you relax same sb > > check you need to restrict it inside filesystems, like your previous patch > > did. > > > > You already had v7 patch reviewed-by 4 developers. > > What made you go and change it (and posted as v2)? > > > > Your intentions were good trying to fix the broken syscall, but > > I hope you understood that Dave didn't mean that you *have* to > > add the missing generic checks as part of your work. He just > > pointed out how broken the current interface is in the context of > > reviewing your patch. > > > > In any case, I hear that Dave is neck deep in fixing copy_file_range() > > so changes to this function should be collaborated with him. Or better > > yet, wait until he posts his fixes and carry on from there. > > > > If I were you, I would just go back to the reviewed v7 vfs patch. > > This is NOT a replacement to the v7 vfs patch??? This is a new patch > on top of that one. > > I assume that v7 patch has been OK-ed by everybody and is ready to go in??? > > As you recall, what was left is to provide the functionality to relax > the check for the superblocks to be the same before calling the > do_splice_direct(). This patch attempt do this. I was under the > impression that to do so extra checks were needed to be added which I > added. > To clarify, previously I had a VFS patch with the client-side series to support "server to server" copy offload. It needed the functionality to be able to call copy_file_range with different super blocks. This patch series is for the server side support for the "server to server" copy offload. It requires ability to call copy_file_range() and do a copy between NFS and a local file system. Thus it needs generic_copy_file_range. > > > > > Thanks, > > Amir.
