Message-ID: <55eaac9e-0d77-1fa2-df27-4d64e123177e@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 11 Feb 2023 07:13:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Subject: Re: copy on write for splice() from file to pipe?
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API Mailing List <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Samba Technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>
References: <CAHk-=wgA=rB=7M_Fe3n9UkoW_7dqdUT2D=yb94=6GiGXEuAHDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1dd85095-c18c-ed3e-38b7-02f4d13d9bd6@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wiszt6btMPeT5UFcS=0=EVr=0injTR75KsvN8WetwQwkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe8252bd-17bd-850d-dcd0-d799443681e9@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wiJ0QKKiORkVr8n345sPp=aHbrLTLu6CQ-S0XqWJ-kJ1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a2e5b7f-c213-09ff-ef35-d6c2967b31a7@kernel.dk>
 <CALCETrVx4cj7KrhaevtFN19rf=A6kauFTr7UPzQVage0MsBLrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b44783e6-3da2-85dd-a482-5d9aeb018e9c@kernel.dk>
 <2bb12591-9d24-6b26-178f-05e939bf3251@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wjzqrD5wrfeaU390bXEEBY2JF-oKmFN4fREzgyXsbQRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+cJDnnMuirSjO3E@T590>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <Y+cJDnnMuirSjO3E@T590>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/10/23 8:18?PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 02:08:35PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:51 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of splice/io_uring, Ming posted this today:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20230210153212.733006-1-ming.lei@redhat.com/
>>
>> Ugh. Some of that is really ugly. Both 'ignore_sig' and
>> 'ack_page_consuming' just look wrong. Pure random special cases.
>>
>> And that 'ignore_sig' is particularly ugly, since the only thing that
>> sets it also sets SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK.
>>
>> And the *only* thing that actually then checks that field is
>> 'splice_from_pipe_next()', where there are exactly two
>> signal_pending() checks that it adds to, and
>>
>>  (a) the first one is to protect from endless loops
>>
>>  (b) the second one is irrelevant when  SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK is set
>>
>> So honestly, just NAK on that series.
>>
>> I think that instead of 'ignore_sig' (which shouldn't exist), that
>> first 'signal_pending()' check in splice_from_pipe_next() should just
>> be changed into a 'fatal_signal_pending()'.
> 
> Good point, here the signal is often from task_work_add() called by
> io_uring.

Usually you'd use task_sigpending() to distinguis the two, but
fatal_signal_pending() as Linus suggests would also work. The only
concern here is that since you'll be potentially blocking on waiting for
the pipe to be readable - if task does indeed have task_work pending and
that very task_work is the one that will ensure that the pipe is now
readable, then you're waiting condition will never be satisfied.

-- 
Jens Axboe