The function io_remove_personalities() is very similar to
io_unregister_personality(),but the latter has a more reasonable
return value.
Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <[email protected]>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index b749578..000ea9a 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -8608,7 +8608,7 @@ static int io_uring_fasync(int fd, struct file *file, int on)
return fasync_helper(fd, file, on, &ctx->cq_fasync);
}
-static int io_remove_personalities(int id, void *p, void *data)
+static int io_unregister_personality(int id, void *p, void *data)
{
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = data;
struct io_identity *iod;
@@ -8618,8 +8618,10 @@ static int io_remove_personalities(int id, void *p, void *data)
put_cred(iod->creds);
if (refcount_dec_and_test(&iod->count))
kfree(iod);
+ return 0;
}
- return 0;
+
+ return -EINVAL;
}
static void io_ring_exit_work(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -8657,7 +8659,7 @@ static void io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
/* if we failed setting up the ctx, we might not have any rings */
io_iopoll_try_reap_events(ctx);
- idr_for_each(&ctx->personality_idr, io_remove_personalities, ctx);
+ idr_for_each(&ctx->personality_idr, io_unregister_personality, ctx);
/*
* Do this upfront, so we won't have a grace period where the ring
@@ -9679,21 +9681,6 @@ static int io_register_personality(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
return ret;
}
-static int io_unregister_personality(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned id)
-{
- struct io_identity *iod;
-
- iod = idr_remove(&ctx->personality_idr, id);
- if (iod) {
- put_cred(iod->creds);
- if (refcount_dec_and_test(&iod->count))
- kfree(iod);
- return 0;
- }
-
- return -EINVAL;
-}
-
static int io_register_restrictions(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, void __user *arg,
unsigned int nr_args)
{
@@ -9906,7 +9893,7 @@ static int __io_uring_register(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned opcode,
ret = -EINVAL;
if (arg)
break;
- ret = io_unregister_personality(ctx, nr_args);
+ ret = io_unregister_personality(nr_args, NULL, ctx);
break;
case IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS:
ret = -EINVAL;
--
1.9.1
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:27:05AM +0800, Yejune Deng wrote:
>The function io_remove_personalities() is very similar to
>io_unregister_personality(),but the latter has a more reasonable
>return value.
>
>Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <[email protected]>
>---
> fs/io_uring.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
The patch LGTM, maybe as an alternative you can leave
io_remove_personality() with the interface needed by idr_for_each() and
implement io_unregister_personality() calling io_remove_personality()
with the right parameters.
Just an idea, but I'm also fine with this patch, so:
Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
>
>diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>index b749578..000ea9a 100644
>--- a/fs/io_uring.c
>+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>@@ -8608,7 +8608,7 @@ static int io_uring_fasync(int fd, struct file *file, int on)
> return fasync_helper(fd, file, on, &ctx->cq_fasync);
> }
>
>-static int io_remove_personalities(int id, void *p, void *data)
>+static int io_unregister_personality(int id, void *p, void *data)
> {
> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = data;
> struct io_identity *iod;
>@@ -8618,8 +8618,10 @@ static int io_remove_personalities(int id, void *p, void *data)
> put_cred(iod->creds);
> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&iod->count))
> kfree(iod);
>+ return 0;
> }
>- return 0;
>+
>+ return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> static void io_ring_exit_work(struct work_struct *work)
>@@ -8657,7 +8659,7 @@ static void io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>
> /* if we failed setting up the ctx, we might not have any rings */
> io_iopoll_try_reap_events(ctx);
>- idr_for_each(&ctx->personality_idr, io_remove_personalities, ctx);
>+ idr_for_each(&ctx->personality_idr, io_unregister_personality, ctx);
>
> /*
> * Do this upfront, so we won't have a grace period where the ring
>@@ -9679,21 +9681,6 @@ static int io_register_personality(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> return ret;
> }
>
>-static int io_unregister_personality(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned id)
>-{
>- struct io_identity *iod;
>-
>- iod = idr_remove(&ctx->personality_idr, id);
>- if (iod) {
>- put_cred(iod->creds);
>- if (refcount_dec_and_test(&iod->count))
>- kfree(iod);
>- return 0;
>- }
>-
>- return -EINVAL;
>-}
>-
> static int io_register_restrictions(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, void __user *arg,
> unsigned int nr_args)
> {
>@@ -9906,7 +9893,7 @@ static int __io_uring_register(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, unsigned opcode,
> ret = -EINVAL;
> if (arg)
> break;
>- ret = io_unregister_personality(ctx, nr_args);
>+ ret = io_unregister_personality(nr_args, NULL, ctx);
> break;
> case IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS:
> ret = -EINVAL;
>--
>1.9.1
>
On 23/12/2020 10:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:27:05AM +0800, Yejune Deng wrote:
>> The function io_remove_personalities() is very similar to
>> io_unregister_personality(),but the latter has a more reasonable
>> return value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/io_uring.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> The patch LGTM, maybe as an alternative you can leave io_remove_personality() with the interface needed by idr_for_each() and implement io_unregister_personality() calling io_remove_personality() with the right parameters.
Right, don't replace sane types with void * just because.
Leave well-typed io_unregister_personality() and call it from
io_remove_personalities().
Also
* idr_for_each() - Iterate through all stored pointers.
...
* If @fn returns anything other than %0, the iteration stops and that
* value is returned from this function.
For io_remove_personality() iod==NULL should not happen because
it's under for_each and synchronised, but leave the return value be
io_remove_personality(void *, ...)
{
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = data;
io_unregister_personality(ctx, id);
return 0;
}
--
Pavel Begunkov
OK，I will adopt it and resubmit.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:45 PM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 23/12/2020 10:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:27:05AM +0800, Yejune Deng wrote:
> >> The function io_remove_personalities() is very similar to
> >> io_unregister_personality(),but the latter has a more reasonable
> >> return value.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> fs/io_uring.c | 25 ++++++-------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > The patch LGTM, maybe as an alternative you can leave io_remove_personality() with the interface needed by idr_for_each() and implement io_unregister_personality() calling io_remove_personality() with the right parameters.
>
> Right, don't replace sane types with void * just because.
> Leave well-typed io_unregister_personality() and call it from
> io_remove_personalities().
>
>
> Also
> * idr_for_each() - Iterate through all stored pointers.
> ...
> * If @fn returns anything other than %0, the iteration stops and that
> * value is returned from this function.
>
> For io_remove_personality() iod==NULL should not happen because
> it's under for_each and synchronised, but leave the return value be
>
> io_remove_personality(void *, ...)
> {
> struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = data;
>
> io_unregister_personality(ctx, id);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> Pavel Begunkov