Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 7.0] io_uring/wait: honour caller's time namespace for IORING_ENTER_ABS_TIMER
Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.io-uring,dev.linux.lists.patches,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.stable |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <ahG9meYUQ-YLDwHN@laps> |
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 08:23:13AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >On 5/20/26 5:40 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/20/26 5:18 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> From: Maoyi Xie <[email protected]> >>> >>> [ Upstream commit 45d2b37a37ab98484693533496395c610a2cab96 ] >>> >>> io_uring_enter() with IORING_ENTER_ABS_TIMER takes an absolute >>> timespec from the caller via ext_arg->ts. It arms an ABS mode >>> hrtimer in __io_cqring_wait_schedule(). The conversion path in >>> io_uring/wait.c parses ext_arg->ts inline rather than going >>> through io_parse_user_time(). It therefore does not pick up the >>> time namespace conversion added by the previous patch. >> >> Once again - If you auto-pick this one, please also do the other one in >> the series, 9cc6bac1bebf8310d2950d1411a91479e86d69a1. Makes no sense to >> do just one of them. > >And once again, no reply. What is going on with stable these days? Jens, as I've mentioned in the previous mail, I handle the AUTOSEL mails weeks after I originally sent them out for reviews. The volume of mails and patches makes it really difficult to give prompt answers here. I have no idea if 9cc6bac1bebf8310d2950d1411a91479e86d69a1 applies cleanly, whether I need to ask for a backport, or whether I should just drop 45d2b37a37ab9848 until I sit down and get to this batch of AUTOSEL commits. If this process doesn't work well for you, I'm happy top skip all non-stable-tagged commits for io_uring. This is supposed to be only a best effort attempt to catch commits that slipped through the cracks. -- Thanks, Sasha