Re: [PATCH 0/5] "task_work for links" fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.


-- 
Pavel Begunkov



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux