Rust: Improve documentation of read_vectored and write_vectored

[kubkon]

Apologies if this is a duplicate, but I couldn't find a mention of this anywhere.

A simple snippet like the following:

    let mut file = File::open("test.txt")?;

    let buffer = &mut [0u8; 6];
    let (mut first, mut second) = buffer.split_at_mut(3);
    let iovecs = &mut [IoSliceMut::new(&mut first), IoSliceMut::new(&mut second)];
    file.read_vectored(iovecs)?;

will incorrectly only populate the first IoSliceMut and exit prematurely on Windows. (See here for a full snippet).

See bytecodealliance/wasmtime#2070 for a downstream issue.

[kubkon]

cc @ueno

[nagisa]

Much like with read, you must inspect the number of bytes that read_vectored returns. That’s the number of bytes read, and the buffers are filled in as if they were concatenated. In your case, I’m almost certain that the function call returned 3.

The documentation also says this:

Data is copied to fill each buffer in order, with the final buffer written to possibly being only partially filled. This method must behave equivalently to a single call to read with concatenated buffers.

[kubkon]

Hey @nagisa, thanks for this! I agree with what you say, it's just that the behaviour is inconsistent between the platforms. On macOS/Linux for instance, read_vectored correctly returns 6 bytes read, whereas on Windows only 3. In fact, it turns out it doesn't matter how many IoSliceMut chunks you supply, it will always only fill in the first one. So if you modify the example above to two splits on buffer into chunks of length 2, you will only get the first chunk filled.

[kubkon]

I should also add, that if this is the intended behaviour on Windows, then that's fine but it should be documented more clearly. This line in the docs makes it sound as if this should return all slices filled:

This method must behave equivalently to a single call to read with concatenated buffers.

So I guess a sentence on expected differences between hosts would go a long way here.

[retep998]

Any platform is free to fill as much or as little of your provided buffer(s) as they want, and does not have to be consistent about it. It is your responsibility, regardless of platform, to check how many bytes were read and proceed accordingly.

That said, Windows does not have vectored read/write operations for anything other than sockets, so aside from sockets read_vectored and write_vectored currently will only look at the first non-empty buffer on Windows. However, std does reserve the right to change this behavior in the future, especially if Windows does gain an API for vectored file reads/writes.

Better documentation on this would be a good idea for sure.

[kubkon]

@retep998 agreed! Thanks for the input and explanation.

I’ll be more than happy to help documenting this, but I’m wondering what the best next steps wrt this issue are. Given that this is not a bug I guess it’ll make sense to close this issue. If you feel otherwise, lemme know and I’ll reopen or feel free to do this yourself!

[retep998]

Generally when an issue turns out to be not a bug, but docs can be improved, the issue is left open but tags changed like so.

[pickfire]

Any idea on how to improve the docs for this?

[poliorcetics]

Maybe something like the std::time::Instant documentation, with a section about OS-specific behaviour ?

[pickfire]

Do you think these are good example for Vectored I/O? I try my best to show a good use case, feel free to give any suggestions.

use std::io::{IoSlice, Write};

let mut writer = Vec::new();
let buf = [
    IoSlice::new(b"GET "),
    IoSlice::new(&[47]),
    IoSlice::new(b" HTTP/1.1"),
];
assert_eq!(writer.write_vectored(&buf).unwrap(), 14);
assert_eq!(writer, b"GET / HTTP/1.1");

use std::io::{IoSliceMut, Read};

// Capn' Proto recommends framing in 4 bytes
let reader = vec![0_u8, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4];
let mut buf = vec![0; 8];
let mut iovecs = buf
    .chunks_exact_mut(4)
    .map(IoSliceMut::new)
    .collect::<Vec<_>>();
assert_eq!(reader.as_slice().read_vectored(&mut iovecs).unwrap(), 8);
assert_eq!(buf, reader);

I think from the documentation side we need to add both examples and OS-specific behavior for this (I don't know much about these for Vectored I/O).