Re: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: move struct io_kiocb from task_struct to io_uring_task

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

 



On 11/3/24 21:54, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 11/3/24 2:47 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 11/3/24 17:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
...
diff --git a/include/linux/io_uring/cmd.h b/include/linux/io_uring/cmd.h
...
       nd->head = prev_nd->head;
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ struct io_kiocb *io_alloc_notif(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
       notif->opcode = IORING_OP_NOP;
       notif->flags = 0;
       notif->file = NULL;
-    notif->task = current;
+    notif->tctx = current->io_uring;
       io_get_task_refs(1);
       notif->file_node = NULL;
       notif->buf_node = NULL;
diff --git a/io_uring/poll.c b/io_uring/poll.c
index 7db3010b5733..56332893a4b0 100644
--- a/io_uring/poll.c
+++ b/io_uring/poll.c
@@ -224,8 +224,7 @@ static int io_poll_check_events(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
   {
       int v;
   -    /* req->task == current here, checking PF_EXITING is safe */
-    if (unlikely(req->task->flags & PF_EXITING))
+    if (unlikely(current->flags & PF_EXITING))
           return -ECANCELED

Unlike what the comment says, req->task doesn't have to match current,
in which case the new check does nothing and it'll break in many very
interesting ways.

In which cases does it not outside of fallback?

I think it can only be fallback path

--
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