- 12 Apr, 2015 40 commits
-
-
Omar Sandoval authored
Most filesystems call through to these at some point, so we'll start here. Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Omar Sandoval authored
Get either READ or WRITE out of iter->type. Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
no remaining users Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
readv() and writev() should _not_ ignore all but the first ->iov_len, among other things. Really weird abuse of those syscalls - it expects a vector element per channel, with identical lengths (it actually assumes them to be identical - no checking is done). readv() and writev() are really bad match for that. Unfortunately, userland API is userland API and we can't do anything about them. Converted to ->read_iter/->write_iter. Please, _please_ don't do anything of that kind when designing new interfaces. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Things Not To Do When Writing A Driver, part 1001st: have writev() and write() on the same file doing completely different things. As in, "interpret very different sets of commands". We _can_ handle that, but it's a bloody bad idea. Don't do that in new drivers. Ever. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
all remaining instances of aio_{read,write} (all 4 of them) have explicit ->read and ->write resp.; do_sync_read/do_sync_write is never called by __vfs_read/__vfs_write anymore and no other users had been left. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
store reference to iter instead of that to iovec Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
we just change the calling conventions here; more work to follow. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Note that _these_ guys have ->read() and ->write() left in place - they are eqiuvalent to what we'd get if we replaced those with NULL, but we are talking about hot paths here. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
All places outside of core VFS that checked ->read and ->write for being NULL or called the methods directly are gone now, so NULL {read,write} with non-NULL {read,write}_iter will do the right thing in all cases. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
all writable files that might be used as backing store for /dev/loop already support ->write_iter() Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
-
Al Viro authored
... and fix the case when the area we are asked to read crosses a hugepage boundary Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... and request the same from the local cache - all filesystems with anything usable for that support those already. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
it's almost always equal to current_fsuid(), but there's an exception - if the first writeback fid is opened by non-root *and* that happens before root has done any lookups in /, we end up doing attach for root. The current code leaves the resulting FID owned by root from the server POV and by non-root from the client one. Unfortunately, it means that e.g. massive dcache eviction will leave that user buggered - they'll end up redoing walks from / *and* picking that FID every time. As soon as they try to create something, the things will get nasty. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
do it in ->direct_IO()... Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... and make it loop Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
just handle it in ->direct_IO() Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Don't mess with kmap() - just use ITER_BVEC. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... and make it loop until it's done Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... and have get_user_pages_fast() mapping fewer pages than requested to generate a short read/write. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... instead of open-coding the call of ->read() Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
it's not calling ->write() directly anymore. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
We check if ->ki_pos is positive. However, by that point we have already done rw_verify_area(), which would have rejected such unless the file had been one of /dev/mem, /dev/kmem and /proc/kcore. All of which do not have vectored rw methods, so we would've bailed out even earlier. This check had been introduced before rw_verify_area() had been added there - in fact, it was a subset of checks done on sync paths by rw_verify_area() (back then the /dev/mem exception didn't exist at all). The rest of checks (mandatory locking, etc.) hadn't been added until later. Unfortunately, by the time the call of rw_verify_area() got added, the /dev/mem exception had already appeared, so it wasn't obvious that the older explicit check downstream had become dead code. It *is* a dead code, though, since the few files for which the exception applies do not have ->aio_{read,write}() or ->{read,write}_iter() and for them we won't reach that check anyway. What's more, even if we ever introduce vectored methods for /dev/mem and friends, they'll have to cope with negative positions anyway, since readv(2) and writev(2) are using the same checks as read(2) and write(2) - i.e. rw_verify_area(). Let's bury it. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Way, way back kiocb used to be picked from arrays, so ioctx_alloc() checked for multiplication overflow when calculating the size of such array. By the time fs/aio.c went into the tree (in 2002) they were already allocated one-by-one by kmem_cache_alloc(), so that check had already become pointless. Let's bury it... Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
it's actually shorter that way *and* later we'll want iocb in scope of generic_write_check() caller. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-