Re: [PATCH v6 01/34] vfs: Unconditionally set IOCB_WRITE in call_write_iter()

[David Howells]

Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ->write_iter() <- nvmet_file_submit_bvec()
> ->write_iter() <- call_write_iter() <- lo_rw_aio()

Could call init_kiocb() in lo_rw_aio() and then just overwrite ki_ioprio.

> ->write_iter() <- call_write_iter() <- fd_execute_rw_aio()

fd_execute_rw_aio() perhaps should call init_kiocb() since the struct is
allocated with kmalloc() and not fully initialised.

> ->write_iter() <- call_write_iter() <- vfs_iocb_iter_write()
>
> The last 4 neither set KIOCB_WRITE nor call init_sync_kiocb().

vfs_iocb_iter_write() is given an initialised kiocb.  It should not be calling
init_sync_kiocb() itself.

It's called from two places: cachefiles, which initialises the kiocb itself
and sets IOCB_WRITE, and overlayfs, which gets the kiocb from the VFS via its
->write_iter hook the caller of which should have already set IOCB_WRITE.

cachefiles should be using init_kiocb() - though since it used kzalloc,
init_kiocb() clearing the struct is redundant.

> What's more, there are places that call instances (or their guts - look at
> btrfs_do_write_iter() callers) directly...

At least in the case of btrfs_ioctl_encoded_write(), that can call
init_kiocb().  But as you say, there are more to be found.

David