On 6/29/20 4:21 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 28/06/2020 17:46, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 28/06/2020 16:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/27/20 5:04 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> All but [3/5] are different segfault fixes for
>>>> c40f63790ec9 ("io_uring: use task_work for links if possible")
>>>
>>> Looks reasonable, too bad about the task_work moving out of the
>>> union, but I agree there's no other nice way to avoid this. BTW,
>>> fwiw, I've moved that to the head of the series.
>>
>> I think I'll move it back, but that would need more work to be
>> done. I've described the idea in the other thread.
>
> BTW, do you know any way to do grab_files() from task_work context?
> The problem is that nobody sets ctx->ring_{fd,file} there. Using stale
> values won't do, as ring_fd can be of another process at that point.
We probably have to have them grabbed up-front. Which should be easy
enough to do now, since task_work and work are no longer in a union.
--
Jens Axboe
