public inbox for io-uring@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Thomas Bertschinger" <tahbertschinger@gmail.com>
To: "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>, <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	<brauner@kernel.org>, <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	<amir73il@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC 0/6] add support for name_to, open_by_handle_at(2) to io_uring
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 21:01:58 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DC6X58YNOC3F.BPB6J0245QTL@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e914d653-a1b6-477d-8afa-0680a703d68f@kernel.dk>

On Tue Aug 19, 2025 at 9:11 AM MDT, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I'll take a look at this, but wanted to mention that I dabbled in this
> too a while ago, here's what I had:
>
> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux/log/?h=io_uring-handle

Thanks! That is helpful. Right away I see something you included that I
missed: requiring CONFIG_FHANDLE. Missing that would explain the build
failure emails I got on this series.

I'll include that in v2, when I get around to that--hopefully soon.

>
> Probably pretty incomplete, but I did try and handle some of the
> cases that won't block to avoid spurious -EAGAIN and io-wq usage.

So for the non-blocking case, what I am concerned about is code paths
like this:

do_handle_to_path()
  -> exportfs_decode_fh_raw()
    -> fh_to_dentry()
      -> xfs_fs_fh_to_dentry()
        ... -> xfs_iget()
      OR
      -> ext4_fh_to_dentry()
        ... -> ext4_iget()

Where there doesn't seem to be any existing way to tell the FS
implementation to give up and return -EAGAIN when appropriate. I wasn't
sure how to do that without modifying the signature of fh_to_dentry()
(and fh_to_parent()) which seems awfully invasive for this.

(Using a flag in task_struct to signify "don't block" was previously
discussed:
https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/22630618-40fc-5668-078d-6cefcb2e4962@kernel.dk/
and that could allow not needing to pass a flag via function argument,
but I agree with the conclusion in that email chain that it's an ugly
solution.)

Any thoughts on that? This seemed to me like there wasn't an obvious
easy solution, hence why I just didn't attempt it at all in v1.
Maybe I'm missing something, though.

Aside from fh_to_dentry(), there is I/O that may arise from
reconnecting the dentry, as Amir pointed out earlier (like in
reconnect_one()). Handling that would, I think, be simpler because it
would only require modifying the generic code under reconnect_path() and
not each filesystem implementation.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-20  2:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-14 23:54 [PATCHSET RFC 0/6] add support for name_to, open_by_handle_at(2) to io_uring Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-14 23:54 ` [PATCH 1/6] fhandle: create helper for name_to_handle_at(2) Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-15 10:21   ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-15 18:17     ` Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-14 23:54 ` [PATCH 2/6] io_uring: add support for IORING_OP_NAME_TO_HANDLE_AT Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-15 10:40   ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-16  7:43   ` kernel test robot
2025-08-14 23:54 ` [PATCH 3/6] fhandle: do_handle_open() should get FD with user flags Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-15  9:17   ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-15 13:46     ` Christian Brauner
2025-08-15 13:51       ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-19  9:43         ` Christian Brauner
2025-08-15 13:47   ` (subset) " Christian Brauner
2025-08-14 23:54 ` [PATCH 4/6] fhandle: create __do_handle_open() helper Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-15 10:33   ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-14 23:54 ` [PATCH 5/6] io_uring: add __io_open_prep() helper Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-14 23:54 ` [PATCH 6/6] io_uring: add support for IORING_OP_OPEN_BY_HANDLE_AT Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-16 10:10   ` kernel test robot
2025-08-15  9:52 ` [PATCHSET RFC 0/6] add support for name_to, open_by_handle_at(2) to io_uring Amir Goldstein
2025-08-15 18:24   ` Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-19 15:11 ` Jens Axboe
2025-08-20  3:01   ` Thomas Bertschinger [this message]
2025-08-20  8:34     ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-20 15:05       ` Thomas Bertschinger
2025-08-20 19:58         ` Amir Goldstein
2025-08-21  7:47           ` Christian Brauner

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 \
    --in-reply-to=DC6X58YNOC3F.BPB6J0245QTL@gmail.com \
    --to=tahbertschinger@gmail.com \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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