linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: io_uring.c: Add skip option for __io_sqe_files

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:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:43:15 -0500
From:   Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc:     noah <goldstein.n@...tl.edu>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "open list:IO_URING" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" 
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: io_uring.c: Add skip option for __io_sqe_files_update

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:24 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/01/2021 17:14, Noah Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 7:29 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22/12/2020 02:10, Noah Goldstein wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 03:18:05PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>>> On 20/12/2020 06:50, noah wrote:> From: noah <goldstein.n@...tl.edu>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch makes it so that specify a file descriptor value of -2 will
> >>>>> skip updating the corresponding fixed file index.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This will allow for users to reduce the number of syscalls necessary
> >>>>> to update a sparse file range when using the fixed file option.
> >>>>
> >>>> Answering the github thread -- it's indeed a simple change, I had it the
> >>>> same day you posted the issue. See below it's a bit cleaner. However, I
> >>>> want to first review "io_uring: buffer registration enhancements", and
> >>>> if it's good, for easier merging/etc I'd rather prefer to let it go
> >>>> first (even if partially).
> >>
> >> Noah, want to give it a try? I've just sent a prep patch, with it you
> >> can implement it cleaner with one continue.
> >
> >  Absolutely. Will get on it ASAP.
>
> Perfect. Even better if you add a liburing test
>
> --
> Pavel Begunkov

Do you think the return value should not include files skipped?

i.e register fds[1, 2, 3, -1] with no errors returns 4. should fds[1,
2, -2, -1] return 3 or 4 do you think?

Personally think the latter makes more sense. Thoughts?