Re: [PATCH v2] Introduce a version6 of autofs interface, to fixdesign error.

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:24 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If you can pull that off, it would certainly work and be the best
> solution.
>
> BTW, this has happened before, we had this same problem passing data
> over netlink sockets.  And since it's packetized already we had a
> slightly easier time dealing with it.

Ok, so here's a fairly quick hack.

NOTE! I haven't actually tested this, because I don't use autofs
(well, not knowingly - maybe I have a machine that actually does).

What it does is add a new "packetized" flag to pipes, which does two
simple things:
 - do not merge write data in pipe buffers when writing
 - when reading, consider a pipe buffer to be "spent" when any of the
data has been read

Of course, if you write more than PIPE_BUFFER bytes, the packetization
doesn't work, but hey, if you do that, it's your own damn problem.

Then, this just makes (for debugging!) autofs always write eight extra
bytes of garbage (NOTE NOTE NOTE! This will write uninitialized data,
so this is literally just for debugging this particular issue), so
that if the whole "kernel writes a few bytes extra" approach with pipe
packetization doesn't work, you would see it even on native 32-bit or
64-bit mode, without having to even test the special case of "32-bit
automount binary on a 64-bit kernel". So *anybody* who uses autofs can
test this patch and see if autofs still works for them despite the
extra padding on the write.

So note the "+8" in autofs_v5_packet_size(). It's there on purpose,
but it needs to be removed for actual final results if this works for
testing.

Comments? The patch looks fairly simple. The "packetized pipe" might
even be useful for other users and maybe we might want to expose it as
an actual pipe fcntl, but right now the only thing that sets that flag
is autofs.

Does this even work? I might well have missed some obvious thing, this
was put together pretty quickly, but I think the *concept* may be the
right approach to this whole mess.

(And yes, we could probably just pack the "struct pipe_inode_info"
better. We don't really need 32 bits for the pipe writer count etc.
But to make the patch simple, I just added a whole new bitfield, which
will just grow that silly structure).

                       Linus

Attachment: patch.diff
Description: Binary data