From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] Add io_uring IO interface Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:05:59 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20190123153536.7081-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190123153536.7081-6-axboe@kernel.dk> <20190128145700.GA9795@lst.de> <20190129064548.GA3280@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190129064548.GA3280@lst.de> Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Andy Lutomirski , Linux FS Devel , linux-aio , linux-block , Jeff Moyer , Avi Kivity , Linux API , linux-man List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:45 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 06:20:08PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Sure, that would be straight forward. Is there a strong reason to do > > so outside of "that would be nice"? It's not like it's a huge amount > > of code. > > And it would be really painful for userspace. Because now you > can't pass struct iovec through from a higher level, but will instead > of to copy the iovec to a different type in the submission path. Agreed. However, if we decide to add the in_compat_syscall() check to set_user_sigmask()/set_compat_user_sigmask(), we probably want to do the same thing in import_iovec()/compat_import_iovec() and rw_copy_check_uvector()/compat_rw_copy_check_uvector(). Arnd -- 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