On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:31:17PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> At the moment there are 11 callers (10 in mainline; one more added in
> conversion of vmsplice_to_pipe() to new pipe locking, but it's irrelevant
> anyway - it gets fed an iovec-backed iov_iter).  I'm looking through those
> right now, hopefully will come up with something sane...

FWIW, I wonder how many of those users are ready to cope with compound
pages in the first place; they end up passed to
        * skb_fill_page_desc().  Probably OK (as in all of them, modulo
calculating the number of pages and ranges for them).
        * shoved into scatterlist, which gets passed to virtqueue_add_sgs().
Need to check virtio to see what happens there.
        * shoved into nfs ->wb_page and fed into nfs_pageio_add_request() and
machinery behind it.  These, BTW, are reachable by pipe_buffer-derived ones
at the moment (splice to O_DIRECT nfs file).  The code looks like it's
playing fast and loose with ->wb_page - in some cases it's an NFS pagecache
one, in some - anything from userland, and there are places like
        inode = page_file_mapping(req->wb_page)->host;
which will do nasty things if they are ever reached by the second kind.
nfs_pgio_rpcsetup() looks like it won't be happy with compound pages, but
again, I'm not familiar enough with that code to tell if it's reachable
from nfs_pageio_add_request().
        * shoved into scatterlist, which gets fed into crypto/*.c machinery.
No way for a pipe_buffer stuff to get there, fortunately, because I would
be very surprised if it works correctly with compound pages and large
ranges in those.
        * shoved into lustre ->ldp_pages; almost certainly not ready for
compound pages.
        * fed to ceph_osd_data_pages_init(); again, practically certain not
to be ready.
        * put into dio_submit ->pages[], eventually fed to bio_add_page();
that might be fixable, but it would take some massage in fs/direct-io.c
        * fuse - probably OK, but that's only on a fairly cursory look.

It certainly won't be easy to verify in details ;-/

Reply via email to