On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:12 PM Olga Kornievskaia
<olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 5:10 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:31 AM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 04:47:18PM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:35 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 07:13:32AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 02:46:20PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The man page says:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > EINVAL Requested range extends beyond the end of the source file
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But the current behaviour is that copy_file_range does a short
> > > > > > > > copy up to the source file EOF. Fix the kernel behaviour to match
> > > > > > > > the behaviour described in the man page.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the behavior implemented is a lot more useful than the one
> > > > > > documented..
> > > > >
> > > > > The current behaviour is really nasty. Because copy_file_range() can
> > > > > return short copies, the caller has to implement a loop to ensure
> > > > > the range hey want get copied. When the source range you are
> > > > > trying to copy overlaps source EOF, this loop:
> > > > >
> > > > > while (len > 0) {
> > > > > ret = copy_file_range(... len ...)
> > > > > ...
> > > > > off_in += ret;
> > > > > off_out += ret;
> > > > > len -= ret;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently the fallback code copies up to the end of the source file
> > > > > on the first copy and then fails the second copy with EINVAL because
> > > > > the source range is now completely beyond EOF.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, from an application perspective, did the copy succeed or did it
> > > > > fail?
> > > > >
> > > > > Existing tools that exercise copy_file_range (like xfs_io) consider
> > > > > this a failure, because the second copy_file_range() call returns
> > > > > EINVAL and not some "there is no more to copy" marker like read()
> > > > > returning 0 bytes when attempting to read beyond EOF.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOWs, we cannot tell the difference between a real error and a short
> > > > > copy because the input range spans EOF and it was silently
> > > > > shortened. That's the API problem we need to fix here - the existing
> > > > > behaviour is really crappy for applications. Erroring out
> > > > > immmediately is one solution, and it's what the man page says should
> > > > > happen so that is what I implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > Realistically, though, I think an attempt to read beyond EOF for the
> > > > > copy should result in behaviour like read() (i.e. return 0 bytes),
> > > > > not EINVAL. The existing behaviour needs to change, though.
> > > >
> > > > There are two checks to consider
> > > > 1. pos_in >= EOF should return EINVAL
> > > > 2. however what's perhaps should be relaxed is pos_in+len >= EOF
> > > > should return a short copy.
> > > >
> > > > Having check#1 enforced allows to us to differentiate between a real
> > > > error and a short copy.
> > >
> > > That's what the code does right now and *exactly what I'm trying to
> > > fix* because it EINVAL is ambiguous and not an indicator that we've
> > > reached the end of the source file. EINVAL can indicate several
> > > different errors, so it really has to be treated as a "copy failed"
> > > error by applications.
> > >
> > > Have a look at read/pread() - they return 0 in this case to indicate
> > > a short read, and the value of zero is explicitly defined as meaning
> > > "read position is beyond EOF". Applications know straight away that
> > > there is no more data to be read and there was no error, so can
> > > terminate on a successful short read.
> > >
> > > We need to allow applications to terminate copy loops on a
> > > successful short copy. IOWs, applications need to either:
> > >
> > > - get an immediate error saying the range is invalid rather
> > > than doing a short copy (as per the man page); or
> > > - have an explicit marker to say "no more data to be copied"
> > >
> > > Applications need the "no more data to copy" case to be explicit and
> > > unambiguous so they can make sane decisions about whether a short
> > > copy was successful because the file was shorter than expected or
> > > whether a short copy was a result of a real error being encountered.
> > > The current behaviour is largely unusable for applications because
> > > they have to guess at the reason for EINVAL part way through a
> > > copy....
> > >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I went a head and implemented the desired behavior.
> > However, while testing I observed that the desired behavior is already
> > the existing behavior. For example, trying to copy 10 bytes from a 2 bytes file,
> > xfs_io copy loop ends as expected:
> > copy_file_range(4, [0], 3, [0], 10, 0) = 2
> > copy_file_range(4, [2], 3, [2], 8, 0) = 0
> >
> > This was tested on ext4 and xfs with reflink on recent kernel as well as on
> > v4.20-rc1 (era of original patch set).
> >
> > Where and how did you observe the EINVAL behavior described above?
> > (besides man page that is). There are even xfstests (which you modified)
> > that verify the return 0 for past EOF behavior.
> >
> > For now, I am just dropping this patch from the patch series.
> > Let me know if I am missing something.
>
> The was fixing inconsistency in what the man page specified (ie., it
> must fail with EINVAL if offsets are out of range) which was never
> enforced by the code. The patch then could be to fix the existing
> semantics (man page) of the system call.
>
> Copy file range range is not only read and write but rather
> lseek+read+write and if somebody specifies an incorrect offset to the
Nope. it is like either read+write or pread+pwrite.
> lseek the system call should fail. Thus I still think that copy file
> range should enforce that specifying a source offset beyond the end of
> the file should fail with EINVAL.
You appear to be out numbered by reviewers that think copy_file_range(2)
should behave like pread(2) and return 0 when offf_in >= size_in.
>
> If the copy file range returned 0 bytes does it mean it's a stopping
> condition, not according to the current semantics.
Yes. Same as read(2)/pread(2).
Thanks,
Amir.
