On 5/9/22 6:06 AM, Dylan Yudaken wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-05-01 at 14:56 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> There's no point in having callers provide a kbuf, we're just
>> returning
>> the address anyway.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/io_uring.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>
> ...
>
>> @@ -6013,10 +6006,11 @@ static int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req,
>> unsigned int issue_flags)
>> return -ENOTSOCK;
>>
>> if (req->flags & REQ_F_BUFFER_SELECT) {
>> - kbuf = io_buffer_select(req, &sr->len, sr->bgid,
>> issue_flags);
>> - if (IS_ERR(kbuf))
>> - return PTR_ERR(kbuf);
>> - buf = u64_to_user_ptr(kbuf->addr);
>> + void __user *buf;
>
> this now shadows the outer buf, and so does not work at all as the buf
> value is lost. A bit surprised this did not show up in any tests.
Hmm indeed, that is odd! Please do submit your patch separately, thanks.
--
Jens Axboe
