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
prev parent 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