linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] io_uring: pass submission ref to async

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 18:08:54 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] io_uring: pass submission ref to async

On 3/2/2020 12:39 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 01/03/2020 19:18, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Currenlty, every async work handler accepts a submission reference,
>> which it should put. Also there is a reference grabbed in io_get_work()
>> and dropped in io_put_work(). This patch merge them together.
>>
>> - So, ownership of the submission reference passed to io-wq, and it'll
>> be put in io_put_work().
>> - io_get_put() doesn't take a ref now and so deleted.
>> - async handlers don't put the submission ref anymore.
>> - make cancellation bits of io-wq to call {get,put}_work() handlers
> 
> Hmm, it makes them more like {init,fini}_work() and unbalanced/unpaired. May be
> no a desirable thing.

Any objections against replacing {get,put}_work() with
io_finilise_work()? It will be called once and only once, and a work
must not go away until it happened. It will be enough for now, but not
sure whether you have some plans for this get/put pinning.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov