* [PATCH] io_uring/net: fix a multishot termination case for recv
@ 2024-09-28 12:18 Jens Axboe
2024-09-28 12:40 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-09-28 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: io-uring
If the recv returns zero, or an error, then it doesn't matter if more
data has already been received for this buffer. A condition like that
should terminate the multishot receive. Rather than pass in the
collected return value, pass in whether to terminate or keep the recv
going separately.
Link: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/1246
Cc: [email protected]
Fixes: b3fdea6ecb55 ("io_uring: multishot recv")
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c
index f10f5a22d66a..18507658a921 100644
--- a/io_uring/net.c
+++ b/io_uring/net.c
@@ -1133,6 +1133,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
int ret, min_ret = 0;
bool force_nonblock = issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK;
size_t len = sr->len;
+ bool mshot_finished;
if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED) &&
(sr->flags & IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST))
@@ -1187,6 +1188,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
req_set_fail(req);
}
+ mshot_finished = ret <= 0;
if (ret > 0)
ret += sr->done_io;
else if (sr->done_io)
@@ -1194,7 +1196,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
else
io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
- if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, ret <= 0, issue_flags))
+ if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, mshot_finished, issue_flags))
goto retry_multishot;
return ret;
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] io_uring/net: fix a multishot termination case for recv
2024-09-28 12:18 [PATCH] io_uring/net: fix a multishot termination case for recv Jens Axboe
@ 2024-09-28 12:40 ` Jens Axboe
2024-09-29 19:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-09-28 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: io-uring
On 9/28/24 6:18 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c
> index f10f5a22d66a..18507658a921 100644
> --- a/io_uring/net.c
> +++ b/io_uring/net.c
> @@ -1133,6 +1133,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> int ret, min_ret = 0;
> bool force_nonblock = issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK;
> size_t len = sr->len;
> + bool mshot_finished;
>
> if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED) &&
> (sr->flags & IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST))
> @@ -1187,6 +1188,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> req_set_fail(req);
> }
>
> + mshot_finished = ret <= 0;
> if (ret > 0)
> ret += sr->done_io;
> else if (sr->done_io)
> @@ -1194,7 +1196,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> else
> io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
>
> - if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, ret <= 0, issue_flags))
> + if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, mshot_finished, issue_flags))
> goto retry_multishot;
>
> return ret;
On second thought, I don't think we can get into this situation -
sr->done_io is only ever used for recv if we had to retry after getting
some data. And that only happens if MSG_WAITALL is set, which is not
legal for multishot and will result in -EINVAL. So don't quite see how
we can run into this issue. But I could be missing something...
Comments?
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] io_uring/net: fix a multishot termination case for recv
2024-09-28 12:40 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2024-09-29 19:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-09-30 1:58 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2024-09-29 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, io-uring
On 9/28/24 13:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/28/24 6:18 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c
>> index f10f5a22d66a..18507658a921 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/net.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/net.c
>> @@ -1133,6 +1133,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> int ret, min_ret = 0;
>> bool force_nonblock = issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK;
>> size_t len = sr->len;
>> + bool mshot_finished;
>>
>> if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED) &&
>> (sr->flags & IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST))
>> @@ -1187,6 +1188,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> req_set_fail(req);
>> }
>>
>> + mshot_finished = ret <= 0;
>> if (ret > 0)
>> ret += sr->done_io;
>> else if (sr->done_io)
>> @@ -1194,7 +1196,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>> else
>> io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
>>
>> - if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, ret <= 0, issue_flags))
>> + if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, mshot_finished, issue_flags))
>> goto retry_multishot;
>>
>> return ret;
>
> On second thought, I don't think we can get into this situation -
> sr->done_io is only ever used for recv if we had to retry after getting
> some data. And that only happens if MSG_WAITALL is set, which is not
> legal for multishot and will result in -EINVAL. So don't quite see how
> we can run into this issue. But I could be missing something...
>
> Comments?
I noticed the chunk months ago, it's definitely a sloppy one, but I
deemed it not to be an actual problem after trying to exploit it at
the moment.
--
Pavel Begunkov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] io_uring/net: fix a multishot termination case for recv
2024-09-29 19:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
@ 2024-09-30 1:58 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2024-09-30 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring
On 9/29/24 1:25 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 9/28/24 13:40, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/28/24 6:18 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c
>>> index f10f5a22d66a..18507658a921 100644
>>> --- a/io_uring/net.c
>>> +++ b/io_uring/net.c
>>> @@ -1133,6 +1133,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>>> int ret, min_ret = 0;
>>> bool force_nonblock = issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK;
>>> size_t len = sr->len;
>>> + bool mshot_finished;
>>> if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED) &&
>>> (sr->flags & IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST))
>>> @@ -1187,6 +1188,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>>> req_set_fail(req);
>>> }
>>> + mshot_finished = ret <= 0;
>>> if (ret > 0)
>>> ret += sr->done_io;
>>> else if (sr->done_io)
>>> @@ -1194,7 +1196,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>>> else
>>> io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
>>> - if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, ret <= 0, issue_flags))
>>> + if (!io_recv_finish(req, &ret, kmsg, mshot_finished, issue_flags))
>>> goto retry_multishot;
>>> return ret;
>>
>> On second thought, I don't think we can get into this situation -
>> sr->done_io is only ever used for recv if we had to retry after getting
>> some data. And that only happens if MSG_WAITALL is set, which is not
>> legal for multishot and will result in -EINVAL. So don't quite see how
>> we can run into this issue. But I could be missing something...
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I noticed the chunk months ago, it's definitely a sloppy one, but I
> deemed it not to be an actual problem after trying to exploit it at
> the moment.
Yes, might not be a bad idea to still do the tweak. Not because we can
_currently_ hit it, but because it could be possible in the future and
just get overlooked.
Thanks for confirming :-)
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-09-30 1:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-09-28 12:18 [PATCH] io_uring/net: fix a multishot termination case for recv Jens Axboe
2024-09-28 12:40 ` Jens Axboe
2024-09-29 19:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-09-30 1:58 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox