From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C7CC4320A
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:23:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D9A6023B
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:23:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S230458AbhH0TYp (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:24:45 -0400
Received: from zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk ([142.44.231.140]:42932 "EHLO
        zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S229437AbhH0TYn (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:24:43 -0400
Received: from viro by zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
        id 1mJhS9-00GZi6-Qq; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:23:49 +0000
Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:23:49 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/19] iov_iter: Introduce fault_in_iov_iter_writeable
Message-ID: <YSk7xfcHVc7CxtQO@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <20210827164926.1726765-1-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <20210827164926.1726765-6-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <YSkz025ncjhyRmlB@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=wh5p6zpgUUoY+O7e74X9BZyODhnsqvv=xqnTaLRNj3d_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh5p6zpgUUoY+O7e74X9BZyODhnsqvv=xqnTaLRNj3d_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:05:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> But see above. People *need* that ternary result, and "bytes/pages
> uncopied" is not only the traditional one we use elsewhere in similar
> situations, it's the one that has the easiest error tests for existing
> users (because zero remains "everything worked").

Could you show the cases where "partial copy, so it's OK" behaviour would
break anything?  

For that you would need the case where
	partial fault-in is currently rejected by the check
	checks downstream from there (for failing copy-in/copy-out) would
be either missing or would not be handled correctly in case of partial
fault-in or would slow a fast path down.

I don't see any such cases and I would be very surprised if such existed.
If you see any, please describe them - I could be wrong.  And I would
like to take a good look at any such case and see how well does it handle
possible short copy after full fault-in.