On 1/26/2020 4:51 AM, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:16, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't love the idea of some new type of magic user<>kernel
> identifier. It would be nice if the id itself was e.g. a file
> descriptor
>
> What if when creating an io_uring you could pass in an existing
> io_uring file descriptor, and the new one would share the io-wq
> backend?
>
Good idea! It can solve potential problems with jails, isolation, etc in
the future.
May we need having other shared resources and want fine-grained control
over them at some moment? It can prove helpful for the BPF plans.
E.g.
io_uring_setup(share_io-wq=ring_fd1,
share_fds=ring_fd2,
share_ebpf=ring_fd3, ...);
If so, it's better to have more flexible API. E.g. as follows or a
pointer to a struct with @size field.
struct io_shared_resource {
int type;
int fd;
};
struct io_uring_params {
...
struct io_shared_resource shared[];
};
params = {
...
.shared = {{ATTACH_IO_WQ, fd1}, ..., SANTINEL_ENTRY};
};
--
Pavel Begunkov
