On 5/30/24 11:16 AM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:21:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/30/24 10:02 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote: >>> From our side, a customer has pointed out security concerns for io-uring. >> >> That's just bs and fud these days. > > You have a history of being less than responsive with bug reports, and > this sort of attitude is not the attitude of a responsible maintainer. Ok... That's a bold claim. We actually tend to bug reports quickly and get them resolved in a timely manner. Maybe I've been less responsive on a bug report from you, but that's usually because the emails turn out like this one, with odd and unwarranted claims. Not taking the bait. If you're referring to the file reference and umount issue, yes I do very much want to get that one resolved. I do have patches for that, but was never quite happy with them. As it isn't a stability or safety concern, and not a practical concern outside of the test case in question, it hasn't been super high on the radar unfortunately. > From what I've seen those concerns were well founded, so if you want to > be taking seriously I'd be talking about what was done to address them > instead of namecalling. I have addressed it several times in the past. tldr is that yeah the initial history of io_uring wasn't great, due to some unfortunate initial design choices (mostly around async worker setup and identities). Those have since been rectified, and the code base is stable and solid these days. -- Jens Axboe
