linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io-wq: expose IO_WQ_ACCT

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, 13 Sep 2021 01:24:34 +0300
From:   "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io-wq: expose IO_WQ_ACCT_* enumeration items to UAPI

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 12:29:41PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/12/21 6:24 AM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> > These are used to index aargument of IORING_REGISTER_IOWQ_MAX_WORKERS
> > io_uring_register command, so they are to be exposed in UAPI.
> 
> Not sure that's necessary, as it's really just a boolean values - is
> the worker type bounded or not. That said, not against making it
> available for userspace, but definitely not IO_WQ_ACCT_NR. It
> should probably just go in liburing, I guess.

If IO_WQ_ACCT_* were just boolean values, no enum would have been
introduced in the first place.  What's the benefit of hiding
the API in the implementation, or burying it inside liburing?


-- 
ldv