Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] io_uring: call req_set_fail_links() on short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() with MSG_WAITALL

[Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>]

Am 20.03.21 um 23:57 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> On 3/20/21 1:33 PM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>> Without that it's not safe to use them in a linked combination with
>> others.
>>
>> Now combinations like IORING_OP_SENDMSG followed by IORING_OP_SPLICE
>> should be possible.
>>
>> We already handle short reads and writes for the following opcodes:
>>
>> - IORING_OP_READV
>> - IORING_OP_READ_FIXED
>> - IORING_OP_READ
>> - IORING_OP_WRITEV
>> - IORING_OP_WRITE_FIXED
>> - IORING_OP_WRITE
>> - IORING_OP_SPLICE
>> - IORING_OP_TEE
>>
>> Now we have it for these as well:
>>
>> - IORING_OP_SENDMSG
>> - IORING_OP_SEND
>> - IORING_OP_RECVMSG
>> - IORING_OP_RECV
>>
>> For IORING_OP_RECVMSG we also check for the MSG_TRUNC and MSG_CTRUNC
>> flags in order to call req_set_fail_links().
>>
>> There might be applications arround depending on the behavior
>> that even short send[msg]()/recv[msg]() retuns continue an
>> IOSQE_IO_LINK chain.
>>
>> It's very unlikely that such applications pass in MSG_WAITALL,
>> which is only defined in 'man 2 recvmsg', but not in 'man 2 sendmsg'.
>>
>> It's expected that the low level sock_sendmsg() call just ignores
>> MSG_WAITALL, as MSG_ZEROCOPY is also ignored without explicitly set
>> SO_ZEROCOPY.
>>
>> We also expect the caller to know about the implicit truncation to
>> MAX_RW_COUNT, which we don't detect.
> 
> Thanks, I do think this is much better and I feel comfortable getting
> htis applied for 5.12 (and stable).
> 

Great thanks!

Related to that I have a questing regarding the IOSQE_IO_LINK behavior.
(Assuming I have a dedicated ring for the send-path of each socket.)

Is it possible to just set IOSQE_IO_LINK on every sqe in order to create
an endless chain of requests so that userspace can pass as much sqes as possible
which all need to be submitted in the exact correct order. And if any request
is short, then all remaining get ECANCELED, without the risk of running any later
request out of order.

Are such link chains possible also over multiple io_uring_submit() calls?
Is there still a race between, having an iothread removing the request from
from the list and fill in a cqe with ECANCELED, that userspace is not awaire
of yet, which then starts a new independed link chain with a request that
ought to be submitted after all the canceled once.

Or do I have to submit a link chain with just a single __io_uring_flush_sq()
and then strictly need to wait until I got a cqe for the last request in
the chain?

Thanks!
metze