From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806BDC433EF for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 11:34:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231329AbiFRLev (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:34:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49932 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230203AbiFRLet (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:34:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4058019F9E for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 04:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id f65so6153115pgc.7 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 04:34:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p7DlaTDQdX68h8t9O4Dawod7203zHP/7ftXOdNgV1I8=; b=mboMO4AOtOJTwoBWYAyXqbQ5AFPvcUh37KH1nZ7pzatwBqMrZT0rTLvWRdRU4RI8mI 3fQJDcH3ZN3hqO5Q5fKlox9LQpM1h8mzoYCd8kLPbFPOJg/5tXMMlPwaIz390RrAC6YS AhIRISB3Guz3geVTTrNfzeMvyEamVDZ7OebsuOja6in6sUrSxbJpu0q9rboRspFq4vkR TU19Jo0HbZIC6KhbJupFb+So4jKNoiBmIFaYjGyrbjFo5qS8RZfIrCR+KqYbBwuq3mzw jhufwEEdXXOyD04PJHrRR2SwtolPNhjj1VBN9cuZhiVNUEhyjCrIkwaU8jKqKX7g7A1i 2r1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p7DlaTDQdX68h8t9O4Dawod7203zHP/7ftXOdNgV1I8=; b=XJyr/xYtFcBXjPuC6eJtRMcaAmyi9YK1EMdzYGRdLelKouFDFdG11PdSp0waqFGiR4 b17tqfiBm1GaTtS9lr6eot+doue3DLMTeC0zfyRzinhUZ64xJIi66aX0Zjb7SGpcxDjA 6bf2T3W7S/Jo78CBlZQ82v9y8zkRVSx0tYjEE9zkOX2qHCLbBrTh85N9FZPZfAAAPjcW S/cQcY+9WePlw6hW2b7ct5k53Q2xonUU9DEzytyF4Tx2U3tWHiZkqd+lT4ai/REGiGnH CpHL7r79Zqqj67gEgW6mLW9BsIq0IuM9NGGSJcp+xna9ChBZSZ0sZwbppJuV1jCb1YQ5 4l4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9wyhTh+dxpZg0uDqTSMkMoMgLsMEQNBTkzfC66/PeEey+QQFS4 UuZBmNQmqYQQwWZH7Mcl0bR7Ng== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uRc5OLi3LU0dhh/crT/onV3Rsx6KqP4v2HlC/qZGQia4seuod5GBlVN9wAXEG02aNKtXRXvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:889:b0:510:91e6:6463 with SMTP id q9-20020a056a00088900b0051091e66463mr14888628pfj.58.1655552087526; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 04:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([198.8.77.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j10-20020a170902758a00b001641a5d5786sm1364719pll.114.2022.06.18.04.34.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Jun 2022 04:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0890d4f2-1f9e-9aa3-c98c-9e415f0dc5d7@kernel.dk> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 05:34:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add support for passing fixed file descriptors Content-Language: en-US To: Hao Xu , io-uring@vger.kernel.org Cc: asml.silence@gmail.com References: <20220617134504.368706-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20220617134504.368706-3-axboe@kernel.dk> <37a2034d-6cc1-ccf7-53d3-a334e54c3779@linux.dev> From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: <37a2034d-6cc1-ccf7-53d3-a334e54c3779@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 6/18/22 5:02 AM, Hao Xu wrote: > On 6/17/22 21:45, Jens Axboe wrote: >> With IORING_OP_MSG_RING, one ring can send a message to another ring. >> Extend that support to also allow sending a fixed file descriptor to >> that ring, enabling one ring to pass a registered descriptor to another >> one. >> >> Arguments are extended to pass in: >> >> sqe->addr3 fixed file slot in source ring >> sqe->file_index fixed file slot in destination ring >> >> IORING_OP_MSG_RING is extended to take a command argument in sqe->addr. >> If set to zero (or IORING_MSG_DATA), it sends just a message like before. >> If set to IORING_MSG_SEND_FD, a fixed file descriptor is sent according >> to the above arguments. >> >> Undecided: >> - Should we post a cqe with the send, or require that the sender >> just link a separate IORING_OP_MSG_RING? This makes error >> handling easier, as we cannot easily retract the installed >> file descriptor if the target CQ ring is full. Right now we do >> fill a CQE. If the request completes with -EOVERFLOW, then the >> sender must re-send a CQE if the target must get notified. > > Hi Jens, > Since we are have open/accept direct feature, this may be useful. But I > just can't think of a real case that people use two rings and need to do > operations to same fd. The two cases that people bring up as missing for direct descriptors that you can currently do with a real fd is: 1) Server needs to be shutdown or restarted, pass file descriptors to another onei 2) Backend is split, and one accepts connections, while others then get the fd passed and handle the actual connection. Both of those are classic SCM_RIGHTS use cases, and it's not possible to support them with direct descriptors today. > Assume there are real cases, then filling a cqe is necessary since users > need to first make sure the desired fd is registered before doing > something to it. Right, my quesion here was really whether it should be bundled with the IORING_MSG_SEND_FD operation, or whether the issuer of that should also be responsible for then posting a "normal" IORING_OP_MSG_SEND to the target ring to notify it if the fact that an fd has been sent to it. If the operation is split like the latter, then it makes the error handling a bit easier as we eliminate one failing part of the existing MSG_SEND_FD. You could then also pass a number of descriptors and then post a single OP_MSG_SEND with some data that tells you which descriptors were passed. For the basic use case of just passing a single descriptor, what the code currently does is probably the sanest approach - send the fd, post a cqe. > A downside is users have to take care to do fd delivery especially > when slot resource is in short supply in target_ctx. > > ctx target_ctx > msg1(fd1 to target slot x) > > msg2(fd2 to target slot x) > > get cqe of msg1 > do something to fd1 by access slot x > > > the msg2 is issued not at the right time. In short not only ctx needs to > fill a cqe to target_ctx to inform that the file has been registered > but also the target_ctx has to tell ctx that "my slot x is free now > for you to deliver fd". So I guess users are inclined to allocate a > big fixed table and deliver fds to target_ctx in different slots, > Which is ok but anyway a limitation. I suspect the common use case would be to use the alloc feature, since the sender generally has no way of knowing which slots are free on the target ring. >> +static int io_double_lock_ctx(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, >> + struct io_ring_ctx *octx, >> + unsigned int issue_flags) >> +{ >> + /* >> + * To ensure proper ordering between the two ctxs, we can only >> + * attempt a trylock on the target. If that fails and we already have >> + * the source ctx lock, punt to io-wq. >> + */ >> + if (!(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED)) { >> + if (!mutex_trylock(&octx->uring_lock)) >> + return -EAGAIN; >> + return 0; >> + } >> + >> + /* Always grab smallest value ctx first. */ >> + if (ctx < octx) { >> + mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock); >> + mutex_lock(&octx->uring_lock); >> + } else if (ctx > octx) { > > > Would a simple else work? > if (a < b) { > lock(a); lock(b); > } else { > lock(b);lock(a); > } > > since a doesn't equal b Yes that'd be fine, I think I added the a == b pre-check a bit later in the process. I'll change this to an else instead. -- Jens Axboe