Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1587531463.git.josh@joshtriplett.org> <9873b8bd7d14ff8cd2a5782b434b39f076679eeb.1587531463.git.josh@joshtriplett.org>
 <CAKgNAkjo3AeA78XqK-RRGqJHNy1H8SbcjQQQs7+jDwuFgq4YSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJfpegt=xe-8AayW2i3AYrk3q-=Pp_A+Hctsk+=sXoMed5hFQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200423004807.GC161058@localhost> <CAJfpegtSYKsApx2Dc6VGmc5Fm4SsxtAWAP-Zs052umwK1CjJmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200423044226.GH161058@localhost> <CAJfpeguaVYo-Lf-5Bi=EYJYWdmCfo3BqZA=kj9E5UmDb0mBc1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200423073310.GA169998@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20200423073310.GA169998@localhost>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:45:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtXj4bSbhpx+=z=R0_ZT8uPEJAAev0O+DVg3AX242e=-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] fs: openat2: Extend open_how to allow
 userspace-selected fds
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc:     Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:33 AM Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:

> > What are the plans for those syscalls that don't easily lend
> > themselves to this modification (such as accept(2))?
>
> accept4 has a flags argument with more flags available, so it'd be
> entirely possible to cleanly extend it further without introducing a new
> version.

Variable argument syscalls, you are thinking?

> > I mean, you could open the file descriptor outside of io_uring in such
> > cases, no?
>
> I would prefer to not introduce that limitation in the first place, and
> instead open normal file descriptors.
>
> > The point of O_SPECIFIC_FD is to be able to perform short
> > sequences of open/dosomething/close without having to block and having
> > to issue separate syscalls.
>
> "close" is not a required component. It's entirely possible to use
> io_uring to open a file descriptor, do various things with it, and then
> leave it open for subsequent usage via either other io_uring chains or
> standalone syscalls.

If this use case arraises, we could add an op to dup/move a private
descriptor to a public one.  io_uring can return values, right?

Still not convinced...

Thanks,
Miklos