From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC37C433E0 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 23:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290FB64E55 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 23:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230295AbhBKXrq (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 18:47:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46774 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230204AbhBKXq7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 18:46:59 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4955BC061574 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id q10so1243014plk.2 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:45:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oaBH2psaxi0QmlDEFpzn6H9XUPMhomHx2+dCWKtXc8Y=; b=E8B//2b1QfdxnxoHG1RYi/OCd6Dbpl03EM0YDLcRHwDlDTUeFTL8pVT4KJoWtFMLQV IX7jh73pEvpHRQiPFsX/E8BjEAoPkZU9z30aldT4Oz3Ryqn+prt+oB6NVGi7T9ET+pkr wwBawopqNPDLKMZIhoQymBsEKGpjEmw7b5rAN34N1nQpo+OQKoiO7Ggu9UgaV9sW9HdR tDeXqiE/EIqNyHSxat4TwsEZkF6dlRBa4587rkmL2s/mvfvLRP3UsTr4HlW2xmjpQBVV AKAuEsKAzCwzzCNmRQOUPj+6CAO5R6pBzsP1r3dAl0kz+er0L1otsExvpntF5wwBDKfV /2HQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oaBH2psaxi0QmlDEFpzn6H9XUPMhomHx2+dCWKtXc8Y=; b=glW1lC0wtuPErCJt5XYIPLqMuc6VrXRUB8sjZ6HBZ1wxKssAori/zQJddyIsxHU2qZ wvAAif+5bo4aah5pzRT6R3K8BspnQ6UD0B78r6gMOzY6UcDrNfW5rLzzES+Rf6XUhgBO v9tkvMX5QowB4mXv4RrRLhEtbEoSlCCcBkgPB5Y1LYbl0rcMFH9wF54rQcTkUU1umg6X s5pWyF0tRBA3dPz/55KUNDH4ouyoV+8MFnzqY5SR8ABrSsRpKPaRohYqYCW84XwRdsn6 /YXfgUF4+Ji2jmVXBj+hsLXFMYk06uI7CdxpEBSTG+99uHUt93szJ6udSV81+OPJMUQD MtlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Z/IxeGISSruoVCVBxEDu+YRwrzcKKM6RAgoZBM7WO0e3S0A7P VmGIAqPuUdvb2QbRTaSQLnMmQ7NlMO8vPtHY X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9Z/+y+IJN9KhW1RbqNnQCIKPcSlt5NHXZciYmLkL2SaQKAw0cxw9UtQhIRZOBhCXfzuYRZQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ee8a:: with SMTP id i10mr138730pjz.103.1613087151538; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:765b:563e:421b:410f:1678:8325? ([2600:380:765b:563e:421b:410f:1678:8325]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 62sm6436096pfg.160.2021.02.11.15.45.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:45:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH liburing 0/5] segfault and not only fixes To: Pavel Begunkov , io-uring@vger.kernel.org References: From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <2e3b5c8a-2fae-061b-b3c9-019acaad4ef6@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:45:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 2/11/21 4:08 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > First 4 should be good and simple. 5/5 is my shot on the segfaults, > take it with a grain of salt. > > link-timeout failure is a separate beast, it's from the old times, > and comes from the kernel's io_async_find_and_cancel() failing with > ENOENT(?) when a linked-timeout sees its master but fails to cancel > it, e.g. when the master is in IRQ or posting CQE. > Maybe we just need to fix the test. 1-4 look fine to me, I don't like 5. I've committed a different variant that I think better fixes the real issue of doing a return that's too early. -- Jens Axboe