The asynchronous behaviour raises interesting questions as to whether or not this is a bug or working as intended, and whether or not the io_uring API should offer controls to allow the calling application to decide.
With synchronous intra-machine calls we mostly take it for granted that pending modifications die with the caller.
But with inter-machine communications we mostly take it for granted that the sending machine and its entire local area can disappear and operations it sent will complete.
Of course, there are exceptions, especially when APIs/systems offer atomicity, consistency checks, etc.
But without express design intent, or preferably caller intent, one can argue both sides of the asynchronous intra-machine case and be right.
I guess my thinking isn't so much that this happens as that it happens implicitly.
With synchronous intra-machine calls we mostly take it for granted that pending modifications die with the caller.
But with inter-machine communications we mostly take it for granted that the sending machine and its entire local area can disappear and operations it sent will complete.
Of course, there are exceptions, especially when APIs/systems offer atomicity, consistency checks, etc.
But without express design intent, or preferably caller intent, one can argue both sides of the asynchronous intra-machine case and be right.
I guess my thinking isn't so much that this happens as that it happens implicitly.
> These are measured results backed by the Linux source, not a portable guarantee for every kernel, filesystem, device, or API called “AIO”.
> The interesting race window is there, but hard to see. So I made it larger.