From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752318AbaLRMhz (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:37:55 -0500 Received: from mail.eperm.de ([89.247.134.16]:55086 "EHLO mail.eperm.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752096AbaLRMhy convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:37:54 -0500 X-AuthUser: sm@eperm.de From: Stephan Mueller To: leroy christophe , Herbert Xu Cc: linux-crypto , "'LKML'" Subject: Re: algif_hash: splice of data > 2**16 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:37:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20272672.S6U6VsnYQl@tauon> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.17.6-200.fc20.x86_64; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5492C6FC.50005@c-s.fr> References: <8707521.TbV00HIEUx@tauon> <5492C6FC.50005@c-s.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2014, 13:22:20 schrieb leroy christophe: Hi Leroy, Herbert, >Le 18/12/2014 13:15, Stephan Mueller a écrit : >> Hi Herbert, >> >> While testing the vmsplice/splice interface of algif_hash I was made >> aware of the problem that data blobs larger than 16 pages do not seem >> to be hashed properly. >> >> For testing, a file is mmap()ed and handed to vmsplice / splice. If >> the file is smaller than 2**16, the interface returns the proper >> hash. However, when the file is larger, only the first 2**16 bytes >> seem to be used. >> >> When adding printk's to hash_sendpage, I see that this function is >> invoked exactly 16 times where the first 15 invocations have the >> MSG_MORE flag set and the last invocation does not have MSG_MORE. > >Hi Stephan, > >I have already noticed the same issue and proposed a patch, but I never >got any feedback and it has never been merged, allthought I pinged it >a few times. > >See https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/18/276 Thanks a lot for pointing to this patch. Herbert, do you see a problem in this patch? If no, would it be possible that you ping the VFS maintainer as I guess your word carries more weight? In any case, I will test that patch tonight. Thanks Stephan