linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring/net: use REQ_F_IMPORT_BUFFER for send

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: <d1bf1b35-126d-4484-8bb5-0a720717ad78@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:31:23 +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 v2] io_uring/net: use REQ_F_IMPORT_BUFFER for send_zc

On 3/26/25 17:05, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/26/25 11:01 AM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 2:59?AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/25/25 14:39, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>>> Instead of a bool field in struct io_sr_msg, use REQ_F_IMPORT_BUFFER to
>>>> track whether io_send_zc() has already imported the buffer. This flag
>>>> already serves a similar purpose for sendmsg_zc and {read,write}v_fixed.
>>>
>>> It didn't apply cleanly to for-6.15/io_uring-reg-vec, but otherwise
>>> looks good.
>>
>> It looks like Jens dropped my earlier patch "io_uring/net: import
>> send_zc fixed buffer before going async":
>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20250321184819.3847386-3-csander@purestorage.com/T/#u
>> .
>> Not sure why it was dropped. But this change is independent, I can
>> rebase it onto the current for-6.15/io_uring-reg-vec if desired.
> 
> Mostly just around the discussion on what we want to guarantee here. I
> do think that patch makes sense, fwiw!
> 
>>> Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
>>>> Suggested-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Note for the future, it's a good practice to put your sob last.
>>
>> Okay. Is the preferred order of tags documented anywhere? I ran
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl, but it didn't have any complaints.
> 
> I think that one is minor, as it's not reordering with another SOB. Eg
> mine would go below it anyway. But you definitely should always include
> a list of what changed since v1 when posting v2, and so forth. Otherwise
> you need to find the old patch and compare them to see what changed.
> Just put it below the --- line in the email.

Minor, yes. But to answer why, because it's normally chronological.
By default I read it as Suggested-by was added later and not by the
patch author, which nobody cares too much about, but that's why Jens
mentions ordering b/w sob of other people.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov