From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] io_uring: add file set registration Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 20:08:32 +0100 Message-ID: References: <2b2137ed-8107-f7b6-f0ca-202dcfb87c97@kernel.dk> <40b27e78-9ee8-1395-feb3-a73aac87c9a7@kernel.dk> <20190206005638.GU2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <8f124de2-d6da-d656-25e4-b4d9e58f880e@kernel.dk> <20190207040058.GW2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190207092253.GD19821@veci.piliscsaba.redhat.com> <20190207133135.GZ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190207152002.GC2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190207162605.GD2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190207162605.GD2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Al Viro Cc: Jens Axboe , Jann Horn , linux-aio , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Linux API , Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Moyer , Avi Kivity , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:26 PM Al Viro wrote: > I'm trying to put together some formal description of what's going on in there. > Another question, BTW: updates of user->unix_inflight would seem to be movable > into the callers of unix_{not,}inflight(). Any objections against lifting > it into unix_{attach,detach}_fds()? We do, after all, have fp->count right > there, so what's the point incrementing/decrementing the sucker one-by-one? > _And_ we are checking it right there (in too_many_unix_fds() called from > unix_attach_fds())... I see no issues with that. Also shouldn't the rlimit check be made against user->unix_inflight + fp->count? Althought I'm not quite following if fp->user can end up different from current_user() and what should happen in that case... Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org