Re: [PATCH 0/6] kernel tinification: optionally compile out splice family of syscalls (splice, vmsplice, tee and sendfile)

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:01:38AM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:32:51PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:28:10PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:36:37 -0800
> > > Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:30:40PM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:43:26AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:46:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > > > > > Truly removing sendfile/sendpage means that you can't even compile NFS
> > > > > > > into the tree.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you mean the in-kernel nfsd (CONFIG_NFSD), that already has a large
> > > > > > stack of "select" and "depends on", both directly and indirectly; adding
> > > > > > a "select SPLICE_SYSCALL" to it seems fine.  (That select does need
> > > > > > adding, though.  Pieter, you need to test-compile more than just
> > > > > > tinyconfig and defconfig.  Try an allyesconfig with *just* splice turned
> > > > > > off, and make sure that compiles.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Did exacly that. Took forever on my hardware, but no problems.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, I see.  Looking more closely at nfsd, it looks like it already has a
> > > > code path for filesystems that don't do splice.  I think, rather than
> > > > making nfsd select SPLICE_SYSCALL, that it would suffice to change the
> > > > "rqstp->rq_splice_ok = true;" in svc_process_common (net/sunrpc/svc.c)
> > > > to:
> > > > 
> > > > rqstp->rq_splice_ok = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPLICE_SYSCALL);
> > > > 
> > > > Then nfsd should simply *always* fall back to its non-splice support.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I'd probably prefer the above, actually. We have to keep supporting
> > > non-splice enabled fs' for the forseeable future, so we may as well
> > > allow people to run nfsd in such configurations. It could even be
> > > useful for testing the non-splice-enabled codepaths.
> > 
> > Good point!
> > 
> > - Josh Triplett
> 
> I'll add this to svc_process_common. I can squash this into PATCH 3, which is
> where the syscalls can be compiled out. The log entry may however get a little
> crowded and multi-functional.
> 
> Should I keep this as a separate patch?

I'd keep it as a separate patch, yes.  It doesn't become necessary until
patch 6, so you can add it as a new patch between patches 3 and 6.

- Josh Triplett