On 2/20/23 19:21, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 2/15/23 21:57, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 03:11:36PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> +
>>> + xwrite (STDERR_FILENO, file, strlen (file));
>>> + xwrite (STDERR_FILENO, ":", 1);
>>
>> Presumably, if our first best-effort xwrite() fails to produce full
>> output, all later xwrite() will hopefully hit the same error condition
>> so that we aren't producing even more-mangled output where later
>> syscalls succeed despite missing context earlier in the overall
>> output. If it were something we truly wanted to worry about, the
>> solution would be pre-loading the entire message into a single buffer,
>> then calling xwrite() just once - but that's far more effort for
>> something we don't anticipate hitting in normal usage anyways. I'm
>> happy if you ignore this whole paragraph of mine.
>
> Any single buffer presents the problem of sizing the buffer
> appropriately, which we can't do in this context :)
Actually, we *can* do better:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/writev.html
What we're doing here is the textbook use case for scatter-gather (well,
in this case, gather). It's strange that it has taken me one night to
realize this (it occurred to me before falling asleep last night), given
that I heavily used scatter-gather in other, not-so-old, code. (Namely
the edk2 virtiofs driver.)
I'll attempt to replace xwrite() with xwritev().
No, I won't -- writev() is not required to be async-signal-safe, so it's
not good enough for NBD_INTERNAL_FORK_SAFE_ASSERT().
Laszlo