public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chaining accept+read
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:49:56 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 9/28/22 5:59 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 9/28/22 11:55, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:02 PM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/28/22 10:50, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
>>>> I'm trying to chain accept+read but it's not working.
>>>>
>>>> My code looks like this:
>>>>
>>>>       *sqe1 = (struct io_uring_sqe){
>>>>         .opcode     = IORING_OP_ACCEPT,
>>>>         .flags      = IOSQE_IO_LINK,
>>>>         .fd         = listenfd,
>>>>         .file_index = 42, // or 42+1
>>>>       };
>>>>       *sqe2 = (struct io_uring_sqe){
>>>>         .opcode     = IORING_OP_READ,
>>>>         .flags      = IOSQE_FIXED_FILE,
>>>>         .addr       = (u64) buf,
>>>>         .len        = len,
>>>>         .fd         = 42,
>>>>       };
>>>>       submit();
>>>>
>>>> Both ops fail immediately; accept with -ECANCELED, read with -EBADF,
>>>> presumably because fixed fd 42 doesn't exist at the time of submission.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible to support this pattern in io_uring or are there
>>>> reasons for why things are the way they are?
>>>
>>> It should already be supported. And errors look a bit odd, I'd rather
>>> expect -EBADF or some other for accept and -ECANCELED for the read.
>>> Do you have a test program / reporoducer? Hopefully in C.
>>
>> Of course, please see below. Error handling elided for brevity. Hope
>> I'm not doing anything stupid.
> 
> Perfect thanks
> 
>> For me it immediately prints this:
>>
>> 0 res=-125
>> 1 res=-9
> 
> The reason is that in older kernels we're resolving the read's
> file not after accept but when assembling the link, which was
> specifically fixed a bit later.

Right, IORING_FEAT_LINKED_FILE can be checked to see if this is
properly supported or not on the host.

> Jens, are there any plans to backport it?

If I recall I briefly looked at it, but it was a bit more involved
that I would've liked. But then it got simplified a bit after the
fact, so should probably be doable to get into 5.15-stable at least.
Anything earlier than that stable wise is too old anyway.

-- 
Jens Axboe



      reply	other threads:[~2022-09-28 13:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-28  9:50 Chaining accept+read Ben Noordhuis
2022-09-28 10:00 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-09-28 10:55   ` Ben Noordhuis
2022-09-28 11:59     ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-09-28 13:49       ` Jens Axboe [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox