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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210724193449.361667-1-agruenba@redhat.com> <20210724193449.361667-2-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=whodi=ZPhoJy_a47VD+-aFtz385B4_GHvQp8Bp9NdTKUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YPx28cEvrVl6YrDk@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> <CAHc6FU5nGRn1_oc-8rSOCPfkasWknH1Wb3FeeQYP29zb_5fFGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YPyMyPCpZKGlfAGk@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YPyMyPCpZKGlfAGk@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 25 Jul 2021 00:06:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU4aVL_g3LHEWng1fr8j3jJt+QVK3wAda2q6pfi+xRJcwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] iov_iter: Introduce iov_iter_fault_in_writeable helper
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:57 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:38:20PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>
> > Hmm, how could we have sub-page failure areas when this is about if
> > and how pages are mapped? If we return the number of bytes that are
> > accessible, then users will know if they got nothing, something, or
> > everything, and they can act accordingly.
>
> What I'm saying is that in situation when you have cacheline-sized
> poisoned areas, there's no way to get an accurate count of readable
> area other than try and copy it out.
>
> What's more, "something" is essentially useless information - the
> pages might get unmapped right as your function returns; the caller
> still needs to deal with partial copies.  And that's a slow path
> by definition, so informing them of a partial fault-in is not
> going to be useful.
>
> As far as callers are concerned, it's "nothing suitable in the
> beginning of the area" vs. "something might be accessible".

Yes, and the third case would be "something might be accessible, but
not all of it". There probably are callers that give up when they
don't have it all.

Andreas