Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring/net: ensure async prep handlers always initialize ->done_io

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 3/16/24 10:32 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 3/16/24 16:31, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/16/24 10:28 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 3/16/24 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/24 5:28 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/24 23:25, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/24 5:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 23:13, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 23:09, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 22:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If we get a request with IOSQE_ASYNC set, then we first run the prep
>>>>>>>>>> async handlers. But if we then fail setting it up and want to post
>>>>>>>>>> a CQE with -EINVAL, we use ->done_io. This was previously guarded with
>>>>>>>>>> REQ_F_PARTIAL_IO, and the normal setup handlers do set it up before any
>>>>>>>>>> potential errors, but we need to cover the async setup too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can hit io_req_defer_failed() { opdef->fail(); }
>>>>>>>>> off of an early submission failure path where def->prep has
>>>>>>>>> not yet been called, I don't think the patch will fix the
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ->fail() handlers are fragile, maybe we should skip them
>>>>>>>>> if def->prep() wasn't called. Not even compile tested:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>>>>>>>> index 846d67a9c72e..56eed1490571 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>              def->fail(req);
>>>>>>>>>          io_req_complete_defer(req);
>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ static int io_init_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>>>>>>>              }
>>>>>>>>>              req->flags |= REQ_F_CREDS;
>>>>>>>>>          }
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> -    return def->prep(req, sqe);
>>>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      static __cold int io_submit_fail_init(const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2250,8 +2249,15 @@ static inline int io_submit_sqe(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>>>>>>>          int ret;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          ret = io_init_req(ctx, req, sqe);
>>>>>>>>> -    if (unlikely(ret))
>>>>>>>>> +    if (unlikely(ret)) {
>>>>>>>>> +fail:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obvious the diff is crap, but still bugging me enough to write
>>>>>>> that the label should've been one line below, otherwise we'd
>>>>>>> flag after ->prep as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It certainly needs testing :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can go either way - patch up the net thing, or do a proper EARLY_FAIL
>>>>>> and hopefully not have to worry about it again. Do you want to clean it
>>>>>> up, test it, and send it out?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather leave it to you, I suspect it wouldn't fix the syzbot
>>>>> report w/o fiddling with done_io as in your patch.
>>>>
>>>> I gave this a shot, but some fail handlers do want to get called. But
>>>
>>> Which one and/or which part of it?
>>
>> send zc
> 
> I don't think so. If prep wasn't called there wouldn't be
> a notif allocated, and so no F_MORE required. If you take
> at the code path it's under REQ_F_NEED_CLEANUP, which is only
> set by opcode handlers

I'm not making this up, your test case will literally fail as it doesn't
get to flag MORE for that case. FWIW, this was done with EARLY_FAIL
being flagged, and failing if we fail during or before prep.

-- 
Jens Axboe