From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A43AA153BF6 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.146 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733865031; cv=none; b=hxLrgDFuXE4DQ1y86pztdbRxl/h/ivvi56mW4V+85WQQPWqTJuXorbbq4A+oY4C1SAttiPyM1tmjrfnEqkdn6xldwmQtCH9wLyxsqaLEKj0UkKndGgIKLE1KNaL3HRtwW0qkU/OocgUg5aNZo7g1J75N6nrlvz3mK0oF3ja8XMg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733865031; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+3jLMgZgbh8yot9KYgPMAi+HB6M2rWTRujHmRSL6if0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=N6KKZCkCNbj7ueboE8wf/UR64b5froI/d2tj/PU84IgS+V+8wkOpcL5+c7BT0nA5jzZ3yfUIroJlY+xKWrvjp19VfTCz4mNEDJ/G0WyTXSm71UIJ/ATqdq4SNV+xd+L33kTi+z86aFAc5aayxZOjBgoFi7crqJDpzNTgOsyXBbk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=joshtriplett.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=joshtriplett.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=joshtriplett.org header.i=@joshtriplett.org header.b=Bxhp7W/b; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=f7CjgoS1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.146 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=joshtriplett.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=joshtriplett.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=joshtriplett.org header.i=@joshtriplett.org header.b="Bxhp7W/b"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="f7CjgoS1" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7E61384162; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:10:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= joshtriplett.org; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1733865028; x=1733951428; bh=D6yl6AKQQfo41prlpgrs/8Iwq8MM0I0neQRRXdBEsH4=; b= Bxhp7W/bTOyBv3qpuvtBmylPRvtpPDZowGkfCGUAXNs1v2I8ELnPOrvr/cbaWGds chA+coY5ORk4oiLnWiigQmqASUhHc9J23VpBlAIJdhlnheOmRiVhdl1djgYj0ZO+ kse53pe7iSeOF6+N+A20lYOkrcCM5ayGiSelnLlKHKuad9eMciaJMuktL4FwlAVy kjM9ZLJYsfTCenzgUJ4Ei4s3XPzuuU1ZmiDWGGlEzTftHfzIcJitCHuAgPFHV017 11fbH5Eoz0ywHlNIfb5pmFDDUTGn3c9DPRXZfmg1B6YndyS1ihLWpdC3Gvltu1v3 0tEat7hwXwKClg8+5HmwBg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1733865028; x=1733951428; bh=D6yl6AKQQfo41prlpgrs/8Iwq8MM0I0neQR RXdBEsH4=; b=f7CjgoS1yUlQVABwqfAber6yuMbT726RjqF8ixkfWZIeQO7iXW2 GC0IdHP4LGaxEltzxwWYuCM2ddF3fobdVXRegyh20KwFT/MQYf0MI5UqIv+KIxeP GWlz2NTeX5ii+qX7WOp6wTP3/e62dDJHpBKl8SjOLgizNZOMD7l8cEei3FRW1+6D +yeBH4GLzlf66o1s9AvLbpLodAe3hmiBnumctm8aakMKl/iIW2UHRquNh1RG81EP hqq5qW+H1S31w1HjJGKXPAR9Kz55erajqPc/cLshXYDEchKZ934Cw0zqjeizQH8m YRM6jWA9PDGqmvOtu8qhfnKCNhGUB2EUy9A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrjeekgddugeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvden ucfhrhhomheplfhoshhhucfvrhhiphhlvghtthcuoehjohhshhesjhhoshhhthhrihhplh gvthhtrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduieegheeijeeuvdetudefvedtjeef geeufefghfekgfelfeetteelvddtffetgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehjohhshhesjhhoshhhthhrihhplhgvthhtrdhorhhg pdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehkrh hishhmrghnsehsuhhsvgdruggvpdhrtghpthhtoheprgigsghovgeskhgvrhhnvghlrdgu khdprhgtphhtthhopegrshhmlhdrshhilhgvnhgtvgesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtph htthhopehiohdquhhrihhnghesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i83e94755:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:10:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 13:10:26 -0800 From: Josh Triplett To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, asml.silence@gmail.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] Launching processes with io_uring Message-ID: References: <20241209234316.4132786-1-krisman@suse.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241209234316.4132786-1-krisman@suse.de> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 06:43:02PM -0500, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > During LPC 2022, Josh Triplett proposed io_uring_spawn as a mechanism to > fork and exec new processes through io_uring [1]. The goal, according > to him, was to have a very efficient mechanism to quickly execute tasks, > eliminating the multiple roundtrips to userspace required to fork, > perform multiple $PATH lookup and finally execve. In addition, he > mentioned this would allow for a more simple implementation of > preparatory tasks, such as file redirection configuration, and handling > of stuff like posix_spawn_file_actions_t. > > This RFC revives his original patchset. I fixed all the pending issues > I found with task submission, including the issue blocking the work at > the time, a kernel corruption after a few spawns, converted the execve > command into execveat* variant, cleaned up the code and surely > introduced a few bugs of my own along the way. At this point, I made it > an RFC because I have a few outstanding questions about the design, in > particular whether the CLONE context would be better implemented as a > special io-wq case to avoid the exposure of io_issue_sqe and > duplication of the dispatching logic. Thank you for updating and debugging this! Much appreciated.