From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk" Subject: Re: splice vs O_APPEND Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:23:58 +0200 Message-ID: <517f3f820810100323l1cc4c361g25f17ebc1461b6bb@mail.gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Miklos Szeredi , jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Hey Linus, On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> >> The thing is, the append-only attribute is absolutely useless without >> being able to depend on it. So in that sense I think the IS_APPEND >> issue is important, and I'm fine with your original proposal for that >> (except we don't need the IS_IMMUTABLE check). > > Heh. In the meantime, I had grown to hate that more complex patch. > > So because I do see your point with IS_APPEND (being different from > O_APPEND), but because I also think that O_APPEND itself is a gray and > murky area, I just committed the following. I doubt anybody will ever even > notice it, but while I think it's all debatable, we might as well debate > it with this in place. I do agree that it's "safer" behaviour. Please do CC linux-api@vger (and if you are kind, me, in case something needs to go into man-pages) on interface changes. Cheers, Michael > --- > commit a05b4085484ac45558810e4c5928e5a291c20f65 > Author: Linus Torvalds > Date: Thu Oct 9 14:04:54 2008 -0700 > > Don't allow splice() to files opened with O_APPEND > > This is debatable, but while we're debating it, let's disallow the > combination of splice and an O_APPEND destination. > > It's not entirely clear what the semantics of O_APPEND should be, and > POSIX apparently expects pwrite() to ignore O_APPEND, for example. So > we could make up any semantics we want, including the old ones. > > But Miklos convinced me that we should at least give it some thought, > and that accepting writes at arbitrary offsets is wrong at least for > IS_APPEND() files (which always have O_APPEND set, even if the reverse > isn't true: you can obviously have O_APPEND set on a regular file). > > So disallow O_APPEND entirely for now. I doubt anybody cares, and this > way we have one less gray area to worry about. > > Reported-and-argued-for-by: Miklos Szeredi > Cc: Jens Axboe > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds > > diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c > index 1bbc6f4..a1e701c 100644 > --- a/fs/splice.c > +++ b/fs/splice.c > @@ -898,6 +898,9 @@ static long do_splice_from(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct file *out, > if (unlikely(!(out->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))) > return -EBADF; > > + if (unlikely(out->f_flags & O_APPEND)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > ret = rw_verify_area(WRITE, out, ppos, len); > if (unlikely(ret < 0)) > return ret; > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Found a documentation bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html