On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:54:21AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:17 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:26:59AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 09:45:23AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, this work is part of GSoC. There is already code that is waiting for this > > > > to fill in the missing pieces [0]. If you want me to add a sample/selftest that > > > > demonstrates/tests how this can be used to reconstruct a task's io_uring, I can > > > > certainly do that. We've already spent a few months contemplating on a few > > > > approaches and this turned out to be the best/most powerful. At one point I had > > > > to scrap some my earlier patches completely because they couldn't work with > > > > descriptorless io_uring. Iterator seem like the best solution so far that can > > > > adapt gracefully to feature additions in something seeing as heavy development > > > > as io_uring. > > > > > > > > [0]: https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu/commit/cfa3f405d522334076fc4d687bd077bee3186ccf#diff-d2cfa5a05213c854d539de003a23a286311ae81431026d3d50b0068c0cb5a852 > > > > [1]: https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu/pull/1597 > > > > > > Is that the main PR? 1095 changed files? Is it stale or something? > > > Is there a way to view the actual logic that exercises these bpf iterators? > > > > No, there is no code exercising BPF iterator in that PR yet (since it wouldn't > > build/run in CI). There's some code I have locally that uses these to collect > > the necessary information, I can post that, either as a sample or selftest in > > the next version, or separately on GH for you to take a look. > > > > I still rebased it so that you can see the rest of the actual code. > > I would like to see a working end to end solution. > Understood, I'll address this in v2. > Also I'd like to hear what Jens and Pavel have to say about > applicability of CRIU to io_uring in general. -- Kartikeya
