On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:12:54AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > What's the point? What's wrong with having kernel_read()/kernel_readv()/etc.? > You still have set_fs() in there; doing that one level up in call chain would > be just fine... IDGI. The problem is that they modify the address limit, which the whole subthread here wants to get rid of. > Broken commit: "net: don't play with address limits in kernel_recvmsg". > It would be OK if it was only about data. Unfortunately, that's not > true in one case: svc_udp_recvfrom() wants ->msg_control. Dropped, but we'll need to fix that eventually. > Another delicate place: you can't assume that write() always advances > file position by its (positive) return value. btrfs stuff is sensitive > to that. If we don't want to assume that we need to pass pointer to pos to kernel_read/write. Which might be a good idea in general. > ashmem probably _is_ OK with demanding ->read_iter(), but I'm not sure > about blind asma->file->f_pos += ret. That's begging for races. Actually, > scratch that - it *is* racy. I think the proper fix is to not even bother to maintain f_pos of the backing file, as we don't ever use it - all reads from it pass in an explicit position anyway. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
