3 ms·
There are practical backward compatibility and security issues currently that prevent widespread deployment. I’ve been leaning into io_uring going forward becau
by jandrewrogers 3y ago
There are practical backward compatibility and security issues currently that prevent widespread deployment. I’ve been leaning into io_uring going forward because it is clearly the future and brings a lot to the table. It still can’t be used in many environments but I expect it to be mainstream in 2-3 years. Niche, but not for much longer.
Most software doesn’t properly use the old io_submit facility and that has been around for decades, despite the large performance improvements possible. Even when io_uring is widely deployable, most software won’t use it.
- jakewins 3y agoWhat are the open security issues?
- surajrmal 3y agoThis only applies to Linux distro packages though right? Servers, embedded, mobile, etc only target specific kernels and so can avoid the backwards compatibility issues and in many cases have all of thr latest security patches.
- p_l 3y agoYes. But sometimes it means that what you have is software that can't run on recent enough kernel to have io_uring (^_^;;)
- IAmLiterallyAB 3y agoThe old aio API is very inefficient and has awful quirks, such as not working on regular files opened without O_DIRECT. Not surprised no one used it
- IAmLiterallyAB 3y agoAm I wrong? Just noticed the downvote. That is my understanding of the old AIO kernel API anyway. The original io_uring paper describes some of the deficiencies of AIO. And the fact that the API is broken on non-O_DIRECT regular file descriptions is well known.
- loeg 3y agoYou're not wrong.