On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not sure if skb_splice_bits() can't land us in trouble; fragments
> might come from compound pages and I'm not entirely convinced that we won't
> end up with coalesced fragments putting more than PAGE_SIZE into a single
> pipe_buffer.  And that could badly confuse a bunch of code.

The pipe buffer code is actually *supposed* to handle any size
allocations at all. They should *not* be limited by pages, exactly
because the data can come from huge-pages or just multi-page
allocations. It's definitely possible with networking, and networking
is one of the *primary* targets of splice in many ways.

So if the splice code ends up being confused by "this is not just
inside a single page", then the splice code is buggy, I think.

Why would splice_write() cases be confused anyway? A filesystem needs
to be able to handle the case of "this needs to be split" regardless,
since even if the source buffer were to fit in a page, the offset
might obviously mean that the target won't fit in a page.

Now, if you decide that you want to make the iterator always split
those possibly big cases and never have big iovec entries, I guess
that would potentially be ok. But my initial reaction is that they are
perfectly normal and should be handled normally, and any code that
depends on a splice buffer fitting in one page is just buggy and
should be fixed.


Reply via email to