Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: Add flag to file_system_type to indicate content is generated

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Why are people trying to use copy_file_range on simple /proc and /sys
> files in the first place?  They can not seek (well most can not), so
> that feels like a "oh look, a new syscall, let's use it everywhere!"
> problem that userspace should not do.

This may have been covered elsewhere, but it's not that people are
saying "let's use copy_file_range on files in /proc."  It's that the
Go language standard library provides an interface to operating system
files.  When Go code uses the standard library function io.Copy to
copy the contents of one open file to another open file, then on Linux
kernels 5.3 and greater the Go standard library will use the
copy_file_range system call.  That seems to be exactly what
copy_file_range is intended for.  Unfortunately it appears that when
people writing Go code open a file in /proc and use io.Copy the
contents to another open file, copy_file_range does nothing and
reports success.  There isn't anything on the copy_file_range man page
explaining this limitation, and there isn't any documented way to know
that the Go standard library should not use copy_file_range on certain
files.

So ideally the kernel will report EOPNOTSUPP or EINVAL when using
copy_file_range on a file in /proc or some other file system that
fails (and, minor side note, the copy_file_range man page should
document that it can return EOPNOTSUPP or EINVAL in some cases, which
does already happen on at least some kernel versions using at least
some file systems).  Or, less ideally, there will be some documented
way that the Go standard library can determine that copy_file_range
will fail before trying to use it.  If neither of those can be done,
then I think the only option is for the Go standard library to never
use copy_file_range, as even though it will almost always work and
work well, in some unpredictable number of cases it will fail
silently.

Thanks.

Ian