public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add support for passing fixed file descriptors
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:16:11 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 6/18/22 7:09 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
> On 6/18/22 20:50, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/18/22 6:47 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>> On 6/18/22 19:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/22 5:02 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
>>>>> On 6/17/22 21:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> With IORING_OP_MSG_RING, one ring can send a message to another ring.
>>>>>> Extend that support to also allow sending a fixed file descriptor to
>>>>>> that ring, enabling one ring to pass a registered descriptor to another
>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arguments are extended to pass in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sqe->addr3    fixed file slot in source ring
>>>>>> sqe->file_index    fixed file slot in destination ring
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IORING_OP_MSG_RING is extended to take a command argument in sqe->addr.
>>>>>> If set to zero (or IORING_MSG_DATA), it sends just a message like before.
>>>>>> If set to IORING_MSG_SEND_FD, a fixed file descriptor is sent according
>>>>>> to the above arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Undecided:
>>>>>>       - Should we post a cqe with the send, or require that the sender
>>>>>>         just link a separate IORING_OP_MSG_RING? This makes error
>>>>>>         handling easier, as we cannot easily retract the installed
>>>>>>         file descriptor if the target CQ ring is full. Right now we do
>>>>>>         fill a CQE. If the request completes with -EOVERFLOW, then the
>>>>>>         sender must re-send a CQE if the target must get notified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jens,
>>>>> Since we are have open/accept direct feature, this may be useful. But I
>>>>> just can't think of a real case that people use two rings and need to do
>>>>> operations to same fd.
>>>>
>>>> The two cases that people bring up as missing for direct descriptors
>>>> that you can currently do with a real fd is:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Server needs to be shutdown or restarted, pass file descriptors to
>>>>      another onei
>>>>
>>>> 2) Backend is split, and one accepts connections, while others then get
>>>>      the fd passed and handle the actual connection.
>>>>
>>>> Both of those are classic SCM_RIGHTS use cases, and it's not possible to
>>>> support them with direct descriptors today.
>>>
>>> I see, thanks for detail explanation.
>>
>> I should put that in the commit message in fact. Will do so.
>>
>>>>> Assume there are real cases, then filling a cqe is necessary since users
>>>>> need to first make sure the desired fd is registered before doing
>>>>> something to it.
>>>>
>>>> Right, my quesion here was really whether it should be bundled with the
>>>> IORING_MSG_SEND_FD operation, or whether the issuer of that should also
>>>> be responsible for then posting a "normal" IORING_OP_MSG_SEND to the
>>>> target ring to notify it if the fact that an fd has been sent to it.
>>>>
>>>> If the operation is split like the latter, then it makes the error
>>>> handling a bit easier as we eliminate one failing part of the existing
>>>> MSG_SEND_FD.
>>>>
>>>> You could then also pass a number of descriptors and then post a single
>>>> OP_MSG_SEND with some data that tells you which descriptors were passed.
> 
> [1]
> 
>>>>
>>>> For the basic use case of just passing a single descriptor, what the
>>>> code currently does is probably the sanest approach - send the fd, post
>>>> a cqe.
> 
> I think it's fine to keep it like this, since we can achieve [1] by a
> GROUP_DELIVER flag and set cqe_skip flag for send msg request when it
> turns out [1] is indeed necessary.

The expected use case is probably CQE_SKIP for using this, as the sender
doesn't care about being notified about a successful send. But for the
target CQE, we'd then need to either have CQE_SKIP implying that we
should skip CQE delivery there too, or we'd need to add an
IORING_OP_MSG_RING flag for that. I think the latter is the cleaner
approach, and it would indeed then allow both use cases. If you're
sending a bunch of fds and would prefer to notify with a single
OP_MSG_RING when they are done, then you'd set that OP_MSG_RING flag
that says "don't post a CQE to the target".

Hence my proposal would be to keep the CQE delivery by default as it
stands in the patch, and add a flag for controlling whether or not
OP_MSG_RING with MSG_SEND posts a CQE to the target ring or not.

Agree?

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-18 13:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-17 13:45 [PATCHSET RFC for-next 0/2] Add direct descriptor ring passing Jens Axboe
2022-06-17 13:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: split out fixed file installation and removal Jens Axboe
2022-06-17 13:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add support for passing fixed file descriptors Jens Axboe
2022-06-18 11:02   ` Hao Xu
2022-06-18 11:34     ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-18 12:47       ` Hao Xu
2022-06-18 12:50         ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-18 13:09           ` Hao Xu
2022-06-18 13:16             ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2022-06-18 13:27               ` Hao Xu
2022-06-17 14:07 ` [PATCHSET RFC for-next 0/2] Add direct descriptor ring passing Jens Axboe
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-06-19  1:59 [PATCHSET v2 " Jens Axboe
2022-06-19  1:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add support for passing fixed file descriptors Jens Axboe
2022-06-22 23:16 [PATCHSET v3] Add direct descriptor ring passing Jens Axboe
2022-06-22 23:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: add support for passing fixed file descriptors Jens Axboe

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 \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /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