Re: [PATCH 0/3] vmsplice: make vmsplice a trivial wrapper for preadv2/pwritev2

[Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>]

On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 01:01:04AM +0000, Askar Safin wrote:
> This patchset is for VFS.
> 
> Recently we got a lot of vulnerabilities in splice/vmsplice.
> 
> Also vmsplice already was source of vulnerabilities in the past:
> CVE-2020-29374 (see https://lwn.net/Articles/849638/ ).
> 
> Also vmsplice is problematic for other reasons. Here is what other
> developers say:
> 
> Linus Torvalds in 2023:
> > So I'd personally be perfectly ok with just making vmsplice() be
> > exactly the same as write, and turn all of vmsplice() into just "it's
> > a read() if the pipe is open for read, and a write if it's open for
> > writing".
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgG_2cmHgZwKjydi7=iimyHyN8aessnbM9XQ9ufbaUz9g@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Christoph Hellwig in May 2026:
> > vmsplice is the worst, as it is one of the few remaining places that
> > can incorrectly dirty file backed pages without telling the file system
> > and cause the other problems fixed by a FOLL_PIN conversion, but it is
> > the only one where we do not have any idea yet how we could convert it
> > to FOLL_PIN due to the unbounded pin time.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/agwFlBKvKytjURDO@infradead.org/
> 
> See recent discussion here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260516182126.530498-1-pfalcato@suse.de/T/#u

So, you took an ongoing discussion with an ongoing RFC patchset, and you
decided to reimplement part of the idea on your own, as a concurrent patchset.

Riiiiiight.... I don't think I have to NAK this, do I?

> 
> For all these reasons I propose to make vmsplice a simple wrapper for
> preadv2/pwritev2.
> 
> vmsplice(fd, vec, vlen, vmsplice_flags) will
> be equivalent to preadv2(fd, vec, vlen, -1, rw_flags) if you have
> readable pipe and to pwritev2(fd, vec, vlen, -1, rw_flags) if you have
> writable pipe.

This does not work. https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=vmsplice%28&literal=1
There are users.

-- 
Pedro