A side effect worth noting: in O_APPEND case we set ->ki_pos early,
so if it turns out to be an error or a zero-length write, we'll
end up with ->ki_pos modified. Safe, since all callers never
look at the ->ki_pos after the call of __generic_file_write_iter()
returning non-positive, all the way to caller of ->write_iter() and
those discard ->ki_pos when getting that.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
That allows ->write_iter() instances much more convenient life wrt
iocb->ki_pos (and fixes several filesystems with borderline POSIX
violations when zero-length write succeeds and changes the current
position).
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
The rw parameter to direct_IO is redundant with iov_iter->type, and
treated slightly differently just about everywhere it's used: some users
do rw & WRITE, and others do rw == WRITE where they should be doing a
bitwise check. Simplify this with the new iov_iter_rw() helper, which
always returns either READ or WRITE.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Most filesystems call through to these at some point, so we'll start
here.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
readv() and writev() should _not_ ignore all but the first ->iov_len,
among other things. Really weird abuse of those syscalls - it
expects a vector element per channel, with identical lengths (it
actually assumes them to be identical - no checking is done).
readv() and writev() are really bad match for that. Unfortunately,
userland API is userland API and we can't do anything about them.
Converted to ->read_iter/->write_iter. Please, _please_ don't do
anything of that kind when designing new interfaces.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Things Not To Do When Writing A Driver, part 1001st:
have writev() and write() on the same file doing completely
different things. As in, "interpret very different sets of
commands".
We _can_ handle that, but it's a bloody bad idea.
Don't do that in new drivers. Ever.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
all remaining instances of aio_{read,write} (all 4 of them) have explicit
->read and ->write resp.; do_sync_read/do_sync_write is never called by
__vfs_read/__vfs_write anymore and no other users had been left.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Note that _these_ guys have ->read() and ->write() left in place - they are
eqiuvalent to what we'd get if we replaced those with NULL, but we are
talking about hot paths here.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
All places outside of core VFS that checked ->read and ->write for being NULL or
called the methods directly are gone now, so NULL {read,write} with non-NULL
{read,write}_iter will do the right thing in all cases.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
... and request the same from the local cache - all filesystems with
anything usable for that support those already.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
it's almost always equal to current_fsuid(), but there's an exception -
if the first writeback fid is opened by non-root *and* that happens before
root has done any lookups in /, we end up doing attach for root. The
current code leaves the resulting FID owned by root from the server POV
and by non-root from the client one. Unfortunately, it means that e.g.
massive dcache eviction will leave that user buggered - they'll end
up redoing walks from / *and* picking that FID every time. As soon as
they try to create something, the things will get nasty.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
We check if ->ki_pos is positive. However, by that point we have
already done rw_verify_area(), which would have rejected such
unless the file had been one of /dev/mem, /dev/kmem and /proc/kcore.
All of which do not have vectored rw methods, so we would've bailed
out even earlier.
This check had been introduced before rw_verify_area() had been added there
- in fact, it was a subset of checks done on sync paths by rw_verify_area()
(back then the /dev/mem exception didn't exist at all). The rest of checks
(mandatory locking, etc.) hadn't been added until later. Unfortunately,
by the time the call of rw_verify_area() got added, the /dev/mem exception
had already appeared, so it wasn't obvious that the older explicit check
downstream had become dead code. It *is* a dead code, though, since the few
files for which the exception applies do not have ->aio_{read,write}() or
->{read,write}_iter() and for them we won't reach that check anyway.
What's more, even if we ever introduce vectored methods for /dev/mem
and friends, they'll have to cope with negative positions anyway, since
readv(2) and writev(2) are using the same checks as read(2) and write(2) -
i.e. rw_verify_area().
Let's bury it.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Way, way back kiocb used to be picked from arrays, so ioctx_alloc()
checked for multiplication overflow when calculating the size of
such array. By the time fs/aio.c went into the tree (in 2002) they
were already allocated one-by-one by kmem_cache_alloc(), so that
check had already become pointless. Let's bury it...
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Al Viro
Omar Sandoval