> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amir Goldstein <amir7...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 6:57 PM
> To: wangtao <tao.wang...@honor.com>
> Cc: sumit.sem...@linaro.org; christian.koe...@amd.com;
> kra...@redhat.com; vivek.kasire...@intel.com; v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk;
> brau...@kernel.org; hu...@google.com; a...@linux-foundation.org;
> benjamin.gaign...@collabora.com; brian.star...@arm.com;
> jstu...@google.com; tjmerc...@google.com; j...@suse.cz;
> baolin.w...@linux.alibaba.com; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org; dri-
> de...@lists.freedesktop.org; linaro-mm-...@lists.linaro.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> m...@kvack.org; wangbintian(BintianWang) <bintian.w...@honor.com>;
> yipengxiang <yipengxi...@honor.com>; liulu 00013167
> <liulu....@honor.com>; hanfeng 00012985 <feng....@honor.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] fs: allow cross-FS copy_file_range for memory
> file with direct I/O
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 11:53 AM wangtao <tao.wang...@honor.com> wrote:
> >
> > Memory files can optimize copy performance via copy_file_range callbacks:
> > -Compared to mmap&read: reduces GUP (get_user_pages) overhead
> > -Compared to sendfile/splice: eliminates one memory copy -Supports
> > dma-buf direct I/O zero-copy implementation
> >
> > Suggested by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com> Suggested by:
> > Amir Goldstein <amir7...@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: wangtao <tao.wang...@honor.com>
> > ---
> > fs/read_write.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> ----
> > include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c index
> > bb0ed26a0b3a..ecb4f753c632 100644
> > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > @@ -1469,6 +1469,31 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sendfile64, int,
> out_fd,
> > int, in_fd, } #endif
> >
> > +static const struct file_operations *memory_copy_file_ops(
> > + struct file *file_in, struct file *file_out) {
> > + if ((file_in->f_op->fop_flags & FOP_MEMORY_FILE) &&
> > + (file_in->f_mode & FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT) &&
> > + file_in->f_op->copy_file_range && file_out->f_op->write_iter)
> > + return file_in->f_op;
> > + else if ((file_out->f_op->fop_flags & FOP_MEMORY_FILE) &&
> > + (file_out->f_mode & FMODE_CAN_ODIRECT) &&
> > + file_in->f_op->read_iter &&
> > file_out->f_op->copy_file_range)
> > + return file_out->f_op;
> > + else
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int essential_file_rw_checks(struct file *file_in, struct file
> > +*file_out) {
> > + if (!(file_in->f_mode & FMODE_READ) ||
> > + !(file_out->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) ||
> > + (file_out->f_flags & O_APPEND))
> > + return -EBADF;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Performs necessary checks before doing a file copy
> > *
> > @@ -1484,9 +1509,16 @@ static int generic_copy_file_checks(struct file
> *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > struct inode *inode_out = file_inode(file_out);
> > uint64_t count = *req_count;
> > loff_t size_in;
> > + bool splice = flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE;
> > + const struct file_operations *mem_fops;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - ret = generic_file_rw_checks(file_in, file_out);
> > + /* The dma-buf file is not a regular file. */
> > + mem_fops = memory_copy_file_ops(file_in, file_out);
> > + if (splice || mem_fops == NULL)
>
> nit: use !mem_fops please
>
> Considering that the flag COPY_FILE_SPLICE is not allowed from userspace
> and is only called by nfsd and ksmbd I think we should assert and deny the
> combination of mem_fops && splice because it is very much unexpected.
>
> After asserting this, it would be nicer to write as:
> if (mem_fops)
> ret = essential_file_rw_checks(file_in, file_out);
> else
> ret = generic_file_rw_checks(file_in, file_out);
>
Got it. Thanks.
> > + else
> > + ret = essential_file_rw_checks(file_in, file_out);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > @@ -1500,8 +1532,10 @@ static int generic_copy_file_checks(struct file
> *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > * and several different sets of file_operations, but they all end
> > up
> > * using the same ->copy_file_range() function pointer.
> > */
> > - if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE) {
> > + if (splice) {
> > /* cross sb splice is allowed */
> > + } else if (mem_fops != NULL) {
>
> With the assertion that splice && mem_fops is not allowed if (splice ||
> mem_fops) {
>
> would go well together because they both allow cross-fs copy not only cross
> sb.
>
Git it.
> > + /* cross-fs copy is allowed for memory file. */
> > } else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) {
> > if (file_in->f_op->copy_file_range !=
> > file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) @@ -1554,6
> > +1588,7 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> > ssize_t ret;
> > bool splice = flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE;
> > bool samesb = file_inode(file_in)->i_sb ==
> > file_inode(file_out)->i_sb;
> > + const struct file_operations *mem_fops;
> >
> > if (flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -1574,18 +1609,27 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in,
> loff_t pos_in,
> > if (len == 0)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + if (splice)
> > + goto do_splice;
> > +
> > file_start_write(file_out);
> >
>
> goto do_splice needs to be after file_start_write
>
> Please wait for feedback from vfs maintainers before posting another
> version addressing my review comments.
>
Are you asking whether both the goto do_splice and the do_splice label should
be enclosed between file_start_write and file_end_write?
Regards,
Wangtao.
> Thanks,
> Amir.
