Re: [PATCH 1/6] tty: implement write_iter

[Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>]

On 21. 01. 21, 10:00, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> 
> This makes the tty layer use the .write_iter() function instead of the
> traditional .write() functionality.
> 
> That allows writev(), but more importantly also makes it possible to
> enable .splice_write() for ttys, reinstating the "splice to tty"
> functionality that was lost in commit 36e2c7421f02 ("fs: don't allow
> splice read/write without explicit ops").
> 
> Fixes: 36e2c7421f02 ("fs: don't allow splice read/write without explicit ops")
> Reported-by: Oliver Giles <ohw.giles@gmail.com>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
>   drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> index 56ade99ef99f..338bc4ef5549 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> @@ -143,9 +143,8 @@ LIST_HEAD(tty_drivers);			/* linked list of tty drivers */
>   DEFINE_MUTEX(tty_mutex);
>   
>   static ssize_t tty_read(struct file *, char __user *, size_t, loff_t *);
> -static ssize_t tty_write(struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t *);
> -ssize_t redirected_tty_write(struct file *, const char __user *,
> -							size_t, loff_t *);
> +static ssize_t tty_write(struct kiocb *, struct iov_iter *);
> +ssize_t redirected_tty_write(struct kiocb *, struct iov_iter *);
>   static __poll_t tty_poll(struct file *, poll_table *);
>   static int tty_open(struct inode *, struct file *);
>   long tty_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg);
> @@ -478,7 +477,8 @@ static void tty_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *file)
>   static const struct file_operations tty_fops = {
>   	.llseek		= no_llseek,
>   	.read		= tty_read,
> -	.write		= tty_write,
> +	.write_iter	= tty_write,
> +	.splice_write	= iter_file_splice_write,
>   	.poll		= tty_poll,
>   	.unlocked_ioctl	= tty_ioctl,
>   	.compat_ioctl	= tty_compat_ioctl,
> @@ -491,7 +491,8 @@ static const struct file_operations tty_fops = {
>   static const struct file_operations console_fops = {
>   	.llseek		= no_llseek,
>   	.read		= tty_read,
> -	.write		= redirected_tty_write,
> +	.write_iter	= redirected_tty_write,
> +	.splice_write	= iter_file_splice_write,
>   	.poll		= tty_poll,
>   	.unlocked_ioctl	= tty_ioctl,
>   	.compat_ioctl	= tty_compat_ioctl,
> @@ -607,9 +608,9 @@ static void __tty_hangup(struct tty_struct *tty, int exit_session)
>   	/* This breaks for file handles being sent over AF_UNIX sockets ? */
>   	list_for_each_entry(priv, &tty->tty_files, list) {
>   		filp = priv->file;
> -		if (filp->f_op->write == redirected_tty_write)
> +		if (filp->f_op->write_iter == redirected_tty_write)
>   			cons_filp = filp;
> -		if (filp->f_op->write != tty_write)
> +		if (filp->f_op->write_iter != tty_write)

This now relies on implicit value of hung_up_tty_fops.write_iter (i.e. 
NULL), okay.

>   			continue;
>   		closecount++;
>   		__tty_fasync(-1, filp, 0);	/* can't block */
 > 		filp->f_op = &hung_up_tty_fops;

Isn't this racy with VFS layer in vfs_write:
         if (file->f_op->write)
                 ret = file->f_op->write(file, buf, count, pos);
         else if (file->f_op->write_iter)
                 ret = new_sync_write(file, buf, count, pos);

? hung_up_tty_fops do not set iter_write and tty_fops do not set write. 
When we switch from one to the other here, right after the 'if', but 
before the call, what happens? Likely nothing for the ->write case 
immediately as compilers cache the value, but for ->write_iter, I'm not 
sure. Anyway, this looks broken to me. (Read on.)

> @@ -956,14 +957,20 @@ static inline ssize_t do_tty_write(
>   		size_t size = count;
>   		if (size > chunk)
>   			size = chunk;
> +
>   		ret = -EFAULT;
> -		if (copy_from_user(tty->write_buf, buf, size))
> +		if (copy_from_iter(tty->write_buf, size, from) != size)
>   			break;
> +
>   		ret = write(tty, file, tty->write_buf, size);
>   		if (ret <= 0)
>   			break;
> +
> +		/* FIXME! Have Al check this! */
> +		if (ret != size)
> +			iov_iter_revert(from, size-ret);
> +
>   		written += ret;
> -		buf += ret;
>   		count -= ret;
>   		if (!count)
>   			break;
> @@ -1023,9 +1030,9 @@ void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct *tty, char *msg)
>    *	write method will not be invoked in parallel for each device.
>    */
>   
> -static ssize_t tty_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> -						size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> +static ssize_t tty_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>   {
> +	struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
>   	struct tty_struct *tty = file_tty(file);
>    	struct tty_ldisc *ld;
>   	ssize_t ret;
> @@ -1038,18 +1045,15 @@ static ssize_t tty_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>   	if (tty->ops->write_room == NULL)
>   		tty_err(tty, "missing write_room method\n");
>   	ld = tty_ldisc_ref_wait(tty);
> -	if (!ld)
> -		return hung_up_tty_write(file, buf, count, ppos);
> -	if (!ld->ops->write)
> +	if (!ld || !ld->ops->write)
>   		ret = -EIO;
>   	else
> -		ret = do_tty_write(ld->ops->write, tty, file, buf, count);
> +		ret = do_tty_write(ld->ops->write, tty, file, from);
>   	tty_ldisc_deref(ld);

Ok, here belongs my earlier note: "if ld == NULL => crash here." That is 
if hangup happens during the ldisc wait, the kernel will crash in 
tty_ldisc_deref.

Is there a reason not to convert hung_up_tty_fops too and leave the 
return hung_up_tty_write here intact? This would also solve the comments 
above.

>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> -ssize_t redirected_tty_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> -						size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> +ssize_t redirected_tty_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>   {
>   	struct file *p = NULL;
>   

thanks,
-- 
js