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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19168C433EF for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235941AbiCWMjo (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:39:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242773AbiCWMjn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:39:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62AD8DFDD for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id i184so1020132pgc.1 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:38:11 -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=ptRTD2JAq0gp8MxGYgwqB+XQfHF51awKGweQSUlPahQ=; b=qZM29w4szsxzWG7pE6dLZcbI9nuLxvjceEK5BOcBYDkwkmdrnUrN3YzpKvnybe+uSX YWXklJVBXIEpH3eRO2IDiigssbjo8FMD5Ot+HW1nkzzSXml1Q7zHhY1b6BVvbyuvKsMX F7fZ/53pAWYZreV9JzqeAuT+lRTL4SsLVk2kk7zpHqP/yYtTEpP2b8ONa+WUHxMVQZFu orZR2cwNBQZUDkxeLZXtsUf1j/ZBDeTKARUr81Hi00XwmowsCwCjddgsXYvJONkJ5tmC g+Np+pTA1RCf2XDh9kEg537kLIR1WSpzFtR186pdE1a0deFXM24AyPU+wtPJ0SArP21A DQ9g== 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=ptRTD2JAq0gp8MxGYgwqB+XQfHF51awKGweQSUlPahQ=; b=JWdRlYwZrVSP6bNTV5cGMQKjZ84W+2OKPFC+gpgfFsrhUqnj/xRe3yXe1gIps2xLCN 6r1/aCSbp2kQ2uJQvfCEr8MC0hU6M4wZEnTLh/McB6SZ9ZLbjzIDH6K56uENgZaXjy75 NCNzAElbw7K9CVz2RwFlPeWObCP7H3wxgm2fJwAFRo4xBeYsyTq1h6TUNdeMfRfK/rIV ItSUPIohI7cDQvY/m66x3YC3qW8a2OpVXM8bk+Ab6W+wmCqTmsjAopaOqptx4/GJrdeQ e2MzzyeE5PnM11rbfImV2Y+Z6V4Vz1irR5+y7N37NyuqQhV/iQ7MzuwWSr+MtY6uPxX1 Pbwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Ge2XEmmsbYL+N97sfGwfPlD2Py0XbrM8PVyfPRu4PqxlQXaPy uZj6jqwtmNxo1+VTjqHl3I3Tb1VrsOOYQf+Z X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1fajIccPXvzBu/SA6sEBYwSNLHCM38Y03UG7fLObm0uRUd0BWX6RU7Ujbi0OrAFQHXKaoPQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:91d5:0:b0:4fa:6d3c:55d9 with SMTP id z21-20020aa791d5000000b004fa6d3c55d9mr27986613pfa.41.1648039090530; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([198.8.77.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gt15-20020a17090af2cf00b001c755f3078dsm5796919pjb.50.2022.03.23.05.38.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 05:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32a37656-33ae-2097-b566-739cf1d951da@kernel.dk> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:38:08 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: io_uring_enter() with opcode IORING_OP_RECV ignores MSG_WAITALL in msg_flags Content-Language: en-US To: Constantine Gavrilov Cc: "io-uring@vger.kernel.org" References: <7e6f6467-6ac2-3926-9d7b-09f52f751481@kernel.dk> From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org (please don't top post, replies go below the text you're replying to) On 3/23/22 6:32 AM, Constantine Gavrilov wrote: > Yes, I have a real test case. I cannot share it vebratim, but with a > little effort I believe I can come with a simple code of > client/server. > > It seems the issue shall be directly seen from the implementation, but > if it is not so, I will provide a sample code. If you can, that would be useful. I took a quick look, and recv and recvmsg handle this similarly. Are you seeing a short return, or is the data wrong? A bug report with a test case is always infinitely more vauable than one that does not have one. It serves two purposes: 1) It more accurately tells us what the submitter thinks is wrong (eg the "this is what I expected, but this is what happened"). 2) It means that we don't have to write one, which saves a lot of time. Ideally we end up putting it into the regression tests, which helps to guarantee it won't regress there again. While you may think that we can just look at the code and fix it, a fix needs a regression test too. And that now means that we have to write that too... > Forgot to mention that the issue is seen of Fedora kernel version > 5.16.12-200.fc35.x86_64. Thanks, forgot to ask, that's useful to know. -- Jens Axboe