[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a39jN+t2hhLg0oKZnbYATQXmYE2-Z1JkmFyc1EPdg1HXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:01:32 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: add a PF_FORCE_COMPAT flag
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:59 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> On 22/09/2020 10:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:32 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> >> On 22/09/2020 03:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:24 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> >>> I may be looking at a different kernel than you, but aren't you
> >>> preventing creating an io_uring regardless of whether SQPOLL is
> >>> requested?
> >>
> >> I diffed a not-saved file on a sleepy head, thanks for noticing.
> >> As you said, there should be an SQPOLL check.
> >>
> >> ...
> >> if (ctx->compat && (p->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL))
> >> goto err;
> >
> > Wouldn't that mean that now 32-bit containers behave differently
> > between compat and native execution?
> >
> > I think if you want to prevent 32-bit applications from using SQPOLL,
> > it needs to be done the same way on both to be consistent:
>
> The intention was to disable only compat not native 32-bit.
I'm not following why that would be considered a valid option,
as that clearly breaks existing users that update from a 32-bit
kernel to a 64-bit one.
Taking away the features from users that are still on 32-bit kernels
already seems questionable to me, but being inconsistent
about it seems much worse, in particular when the regression
is on the upgrade path.
> > Can we expect all existing and future user space to have a sane
> > fallback when IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL fails?
>
> SQPOLL has a few differences with non-SQPOLL modes, but it's easy
> to convert between them. Anyway, SQPOLL is a privileged special
> case that's here for performance/latency reasons, I don't think
> there will be any non-accidental users of it.
Ok, so the behavior of 32-bit tasks would be the same as running
the same application as unprivileged 64-bit tasks, with applications
already having to implement that fallback, right?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists