Bug 1724976

Summary: glibc: Remove copy_file_range emulation
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Florian Weimer <fweimer>
Component: glibcAssignee: Florian Weimer <fweimer>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 31CC: aoliva, arjun, codonell, dj, fweimer, law, mfabian, pfrankli, rth, siddhesh
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: glibc-2.29.9000-31.fc31 glibc-2.29-19.fc30 glibc-2.28-36.fc29 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
The copy_file_range function fails with ENOSYS if the kernel does not support the system call of the same name. Previously, user space emulation was performed, but its behavior did not match the kernel behavior, which was deemed too confusing. Applications which use the copy_file_range function can no longer rely on glibc to provide a fallback on kernels that do not support the copy_file_range system call, and if this function returns ENOSYS, they will need to use their own fallback. Support for copy_file_range is present for all architectures when using a supported Fedora kernel.
 Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 1724975 Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-09-21 05:46:21 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1724975    

Description Florian Weimer 2019-06-28 07:55:31 UTC 
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1724975 +++

For alignment with upstream, we should remove the copy_file_range emulation in glibc.  This will prevent people from running into bugs in the emulation.

Fedora kernels have supported copy_file_range for a long time (since Linux 4.5).
Comment 1 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 17:10:51 UTC 
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.
Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 17:34:18 UTC 
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.
Comment 3 Carlos O'Donell 2019-08-22 16:35:27 UTC 
Florian,

I believe this is fixed in F31. Can you please review?
Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2019-09-05 09:20:12 UTC 
FEDORA-2019-2e9a65b50a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2e9a65b50a
Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-09-05 12:53:22 UTC 
glibc-2.29-22.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2e9a65b50a
Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-09-06 09:44:19 UTC 
FEDORA-2019-8532718f88 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8532718f88
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-09-06 12:33:56 UTC 
glibc-2.29-22.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-09-06 13:21:47 UTC 
glibc-2.28-39.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8532718f88
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-09-21 01:42:18 UTC 
glibc-2.28-39.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.