Re: [PATCH 3/4] io_uring: add IORING_OP_READ[WRITE]_SPLICE_BUF

Jens Axboe
2023-02-12T03:55:32Z

On 2/11/23 8:22?PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> Also seems like this should be separately testable. We can't add new
>>>> opcodes that don't have a feature test at least, and should also have
>>>> various corner case tests. A bit of commenting outside of this below.
>>>
>>> OK, I will write/add one very simple ublk userspace to liburing for
>>> test purpose.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Thinking of further, if we use ublk for liburing test purpose, root is
> often needed, even though we support un-privileged mode, which needs
> administrator to grant access, so is it still good to do so?

That's fine, some tests already depend on root for certain things, like
passthrough. When I run the tests, I do a pass as both a regular user
and as root. The important bit is just that the tests skip when they are
not root rather than fail.

> It could be easier to add ->splice_read() on /dev/zero for test
> purpose, just allocate zeroed pages in ->splice_read(), and add
> them to pipe like ublk->splice_read(), and sink side can read
> from or write to these pages, but zero's read_iter_zero() won't
> be affected. And normal splice/tee won't connect to zero too
> because we only allow it from kernel use.

Arguably /dev/zero should still support splice_read() as a regression
fix as I argued to Linus, so I'd just add that as a prep patch.

>>>> Seems like this should check for SPLICE_F_FD_IN_FIXED, and also use
>>>> io_file_get_normal() for the non-fixed case in case someone passed in an
>>>> io_uring fd.
>>>
>>> SPLICE_F_FD_IN_FIXED needs one extra word for holding splice flags, if
>>> we can use sqe->addr3, I think it is doable.
>>
>> I haven't checked the rest, but you can't just use ->splice_flags for
>> this?
>
> ->splice_flags shares memory with rwflags, so can't be used.
>
> I think it is fine to use ->addr3, given io_getxattr()/io_setxattr()/
> io_msg_ring() has used that.

This is part of the confusion, as you treat it basically like a
read/write internally, but the opcode names indicate differently. Why
not just have a separate prep helper for these and then use a layout
that makes more sense, surely rwflags aren't applicable for these
anyway? I think that'd make it a lot cleaner.

Yeah, addr3 could easily be used, but it's makes for a really confusing
command structure when the command is kinda-read but also kinda-splice.
And it arguable makes more sense to treat it as the latter, as it takes
the two fds like splice.

--
Jens Axboe