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  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:   Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:31:42 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Jens Axboe <>
Cc:     "linux-kernel\" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: cleanup notification modes

On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 17:43, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/16/20 5:38 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> If you know the task isn't exiting, then yeah you can ignore it. But
> seems a bit dicey...


>> fs/io_uring.c-	if (unlikely(ret)) {
>> fs/io_uring.c-		struct task_struct *tsk;
>> fs/io_uring.c-
>> fs/io_uring.c-		init_task_work(&req->task_work, io_req_task_cancel);
>> fs/io_uring.c-		tsk = io_wq_get_task(req->ctx->io_wq);
>> fs/io_uring.c:		task_work_add(tsk, &req->task_work, 0);
>> fs/io_uring.c-		wake_up_process(tsk);
>> yet more magic wakeup.
> It's not magic, but probably needs a comment... If we fail, that task is
> exiting. But we know we have our io-wq threads, so we use that as a
> fallback. Not really expected in the fast path.

I somehow misread it. So ignore me.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists