[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4e95c1b-43da-30b2-b120-e59fa5b68b18@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:18:31 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] io_uring: rsrc: avoid use of vmas parameter in
pin_user_pages()
On 4/19/23 2:15 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/19/23 12:24?PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 07:23:00PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 07:18:26PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>>> So even if I did the FOLL_ALLOW_BROKEN_FILE_MAPPING patch series first, I
>>>> would still need to come along and delete a bunch of your code
>>>> afterwards. And unfortunately Pavel's recent change which insists on not
>>>> having different vm_file's across VMAs for the buffer would have to be
>>>> reverted so I expect it might not be entirely without discussion.
>>>
>>> I don't even understand why Pavel wanted to make this change. The
>>> commit log really doesn't say.
>>>
>>> commit edd478269640
>>> Author: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
>>> Date: Wed Feb 22 14:36:48 2023 +0000
>>>
>>> io_uring/rsrc: disallow multi-source reg buffers
>>>
>>> If two or more mappings go back to back to each other they can be passed
>>> into io_uring to be registered as a single registered buffer. That would
>>> even work if mappings came from different sources, e.g. it's possible to
>>> mix in this way anon pages and pages from shmem or hugetlb. That is not
>>> a problem but it'd rather be less prone if we forbid such mixing.
>>>
>>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>>>
>>> It even says "That is not a problem"! So why was this patch merged
>>> if it's not fixing a problem?
>>>
>>> It's now standing in the way of an actual cleanup. So why don't we
>>> revert it? There must be more to it than this ...
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/61ded378-51a8-1dcb-b631-fda1903248a9@gmail.com/
>
> Let's just kill that patch that, I can add a revert for 6.4. I had
> forgotten about that patch and guess I didn't realize that most of the
> issue do in fact just stem from that.
https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-6.4/io_uring&id=fbd3aaf37886d3645b1bd6920f6298f5884049f8
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists