linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring/rsrc: declare io_find_buf

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]

Message-ID: <f3033c30-8a0e-4a18-aeb8-82fa97020bc1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 02:31:14 +0000
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring/rsrc: declare io_find_buf_node() in header
 file

On 3/1/25 02:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/28/25 7:04 PM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 5:45 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/1/25 00:16, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>>> Declare io_find_buf_node() in io_uring/rsrc.h so it can be called from
>>>> other files.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    io_uring/rsrc.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    io_uring/rsrc.h | 2 ++
>>>>    2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/rsrc.c b/io_uring/rsrc.c
>>>> index 45bfb37bca1e..4c4f57cd77f9 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/rsrc.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/rsrc.c
>>>> @@ -1066,12 +1066,12 @@ static int io_import_fixed(int ddir, struct iov_iter *iter,
>>>>        }
>>>>
>>>>        return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> -static inline struct io_rsrc_node *io_find_buf_node(struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>> -                                                 unsigned issue_flags)
>>>
>>> That's a hot path, an extra function call wouldn't be great,
>>> and it's an internal detail as well. Let's better see what we
>>> can do with the nop situation.
>>
>> I can add back inline. With that, there shouldn't be any difference to
>> the generated instructions for io_import_reg_buf().
> 
> Yeah, in general I don't like manual inlines, unless it's been proven
> that the compiler messes it up for some reason. If it's short enough
> it'll be inlined.

It will _not_ be inlined in this case.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov