On 9/26/22 2:29 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 9/26/22 20:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/26/22 1:12 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 9/26/22 18:09, Dylan Yudaken wrote:
>>>> Instead of picking the task from the first submitter task, rather use the
>>>> creator task or in the case of disabled (IORING_SETUP_R_DISABLED) the
>>>> enabling task.
>>>>
>>>> This approach allows a lot of simplification of the logic here. This
>>>> removes init logic from the submission path, which can always be a bit
>>>> confusing, but also removes the need for locking to write (or read) the
>>>> submitter_task.
>>>>
>>>> Users that want to move a ring before submitting can create the ring
>>>> disabled and then enable it on the submitting task.
>>>
>>> I think Dylan briefly mentioned before that it might be a good
>>> idea to task limit registration as well. I can't think of a use
>>> case at the moment but I agree we may find some in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>> index 242d896c00f3..60a471e43fd9 100644
>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>> @@ -3706,6 +3706,9 @@ static int __io_uring_register(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned opcode,
>>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(percpu_ref_is_dying(&ctx->refs)))
>>> return -ENXIO;
>>> + if (ctx->submitter_task && ctx->submitter_task != current)
>>> + return -EEXIST;
>>> +
>>> if (ctx->restricted) {
>>> if (opcode >= IORING_REGISTER_LAST)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Yes, I don't see any reason why not to enforce this for registration
>> too. Don't think there's currently a need to do so, but it'd be easy
>> to miss once we do add that. Let's queue that up for 6.1?
>
> 6.1 + stable sounds ok, I don't have an opinion on how to how
> to merge it.
That's the plan. If you can just send it out as a separate commit,
I'll stage it up behind the two others from Dylan.
--
Jens Axboe
