Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] open/accept directly into io_uring fixed file table

On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 08:18:12PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:

On 8/21/21 9:52 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:

quoted

Add an optional feature to open/accept directly into io_uring's fixed
file table bypassing the normal file table. Same behaviour if as the
snippet below, but in one operation:

sqe = prep_[open,accept](...);
cqe = submit_and_wait(sqe);
io_uring_register_files_update(uring_idx, (fd = cqe->res));
close((fd = cqe->res));

The idea in pretty old, and was brough up and implemented a year ago
by Josh Triplett, though haven't sought the light for some reasons.

The behaviour is controlled by setting sqe->file_index, where 0 implies
the old behaviour. If non-zero value is specified, then it will behave
as described and place the file into a fixed file slot
sqe->file_index - 1. A file table should be already created, the slot
should be valid and empty, otherwise the operation will fail.

we can't use IOSQE_FIXED_FILE to switch between modes, because accept
takes a file, and it already uses the flag with a different meaning.

since RFC:
 - added attribution
 - updated descriptions
 - rebased

since v1:
 - EBADF if slot is already used (Josh Triplett)
 - alias index with splice_fd_in (Josh Triplett)
 - fix a bound check bug

With the prep series, this looks good to me now. Josh, what do you
think?

I would still like to see this using a union with the `nofile` field in
io_open and io_accept, rather than overloading the 16-bit buf_index
field. That would avoid truncating to 16 bits, and make less work for
expansion to more than 16 bits of fixed file indexes.

(I'd also like that to actually use a union, rather than overloading the
meaning of buf_index/nofile.)

I personally still feel that using non-zero to signify index-plus-one is
both error-prone and not as future-compatible. I think we could do
better with no additional overhead. But I think the final call on that
interface is up to you, Jens. Do you think it'd be worth spending a flag
bit or using a different opcode, to get a cleaner interface? If you
don't, then I'd be fine with seeing this go in with just the io_open and
io_accept change.

- Josh Triplett