Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 21:50:36 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/23] fs: don't change the address limit for
 ->write_iter in __kernel_write
Message-ID: <20200729205036.GA1236929@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20200707174801.4162712-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20200707174801.4162712-9-hch@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200707174801.4162712-9-hch@lst.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:47:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> If we write to a file that implements ->write_iter there is no need
> to change the address limit if we send a kvec down.  Implement that
> case, and prefer it over using plain ->write with a changed address
> limit if available.

	You are flipping the priorities of ->write and ->write_iter
for kernel_write().  Now, there are 4 instances of file_operations
where we have both.  null_fops and zero_fops are fine either way -
->write() and ->write_iter() do the same thing there (and arguably
removing ->write might be the right thing; the only reason I hesistate
is that writing to /dev/null *is* critical for many things, including
the proper mail delivery ;-)

However, the other two (infinibarf and pcm) are different; there we
really have different semantics.  I don't believe anything writes into
either under KERNEL_DS, but having kernel_write() and vfs_write() with
subtly different semantics is asking for trouble down the road.

How about we remove ->write in null_fops/zero_fops and fail loudly if
*both* ->write() and ->write_iter() are present (in kernel_write(),
that is)?

There's a similar situation on the read side - there we have /dev/null
with both ->read() and ->read_iter() (and there "remove ->read" is
obviously the right thing to do) *and* we have pcm crap, with different
semantics for ->read() and ->read_iter().