GNU bug report logs - #7362
dd strangeness

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 7362 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#7362: dd strangeness
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:06:43 +0000

On 02/03/11 17:55, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/02/2011 04:53 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> +  /* Enable 'fullblock' with 'direct' or 'cio' as we don't want to
>> +     write partial blocks to output, which would disable O_DIRECT. An
>> +     alternative would be to enable C_TWOBUFS to accumulate full output
>> +     blocks.  However that wouldn't work when a count is specified, and
>> +     is also less efficient.  */
>> +  if (output_flags & (O_DIRECT | O_CIO))
>> +    input_flags |= O_FULLBLOCK;
>
> I'm afraid this patch feels wrong somehow.  It's conflating four
> issues: counting, efficiency, disabling O_DIRECT, and disabling O_CIO.
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1.  Offhand I don't see why O_CIO has anything to do with blocking;
> why is it mentioned here?

Well in my quick googling it seemed to be a superset
of O_DIRECT mode, with the same alignment constraints.
It seems to fall back to a standard (synchronous) write
if the alignment is not maintained (we should always be OK there),
so I thought it safer to add it given its close relationship
with O_DIRECT. I'll remove it until I can actually test this.

>
> 2.  If C_TWOBUFS is already in effect, then dd needn't set
> O_FULLBLOCK, since C_TWOBUFS already prevents the disabling of
> O_DIRECT.

True. But it shouldn't cause an issue.
I'll leave as is to simplify the code and docs.
I'll amend the comment.

> 3.  The counting issue is independent of oflag=direct or oflag=cio:
> any solution for counting should work regardless of oflag settings.

True. I'll amend the comment.

> The more I think about it, the more I suspect that this
> O_FULLBLOCK-inferring code should be omitted.  It adds little benefit, as
> it covers a rare combination of flags that is likely to be used only
> by experts, who should know the gotchas in this area anyway.  And the
> extra complexity in documentation will penalize everybody who reads
> it, even the non-experts.

Well it has caught people out recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614605
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/22/746

I'm still inclined to add this.

Thanks for all the insightful comments on this BTW.
dd really is hairy.

Pádraig.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.