From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC] do_iopoll() and *grab_env()
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:02:52 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 6/12/20 11:55 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/12/20 11:30 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 12/06/2020 20:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/11/20 9:54 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> io_do_iopoll() can async punt a request with io_queue_async_work(),
>>>> so doing io_req_work_grab_env(). The problem is that iopoll() can
>>>> be called from who knows what context, e.g. from a completely
>>>> different process with its own memory space, creds, etc.
>>>>
>>>> io_do_iopoll() {
>>>> ret = req->poll();
>>>> if (ret == -EAGAIN)
>>>> io_queue_async_work()
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't find it handled in io_uring. Can this even happen?
>>>> Wouldn't it be better to complete them with -EAGAIN?
>>>
>>> I don't think a plain -EAGAIN complete would be very useful, it's kind
>>> of a shitty thing to pass back to userspace when it can be avoided. For
>>> polled IO, we know we're doing O_DIRECT, or using fixed buffers. For the
>>> latter, there's no problem in retrying, regardless of context. For the
>>> former, I think we'd get -EFAULT mapping the IO at that point, which is
>>> probably reasonable. I'd need to double check, though.
>>
>> It's shitty, but -EFAULT is the best outcome. I care more about not
>> corrupting another process' memory if addresses coincide. AFAIK it can
>> happen because io_{read,write} will use iovecs for punted re-submission.
>>
>>
>> Unconditional in advance async_prep() is too heavy to be good. I'd love to
>> see something more clever, but with -EAGAIN users at least can handle it.
>
> So how about we just grab ->task for the initial issue, and retry if we
> find it through -EAGAIN and ->task == current. That'll be the most
> common case, by far, and it'll prevent passes back -EAGAIN when we
> really don't have to. If the task is different, then -EAGAIN makes more
> sense, because at that point we're passing back -EAGAIN because we
> really cannot feasibly handle it rather than just as a convenience.
Something like this, totally untested. And wants a comment too.
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 155f3d830ddb..15806f71b33e 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -1727,6 +1728,12 @@ static int io_put_kbuf(struct io_kiocb *req)
return cflags;
}
+static inline void req_set_fail_links(struct io_kiocb *req)
+{
+ if ((req->flags & (REQ_F_LINK | REQ_F_HARDLINK)) == REQ_F_LINK)
+ req->flags |= REQ_F_FAIL_LINK;
+}
+
/*
* Find and free completed poll iocbs
*/
@@ -1767,8 +1774,14 @@ static void io_iopoll_queue(struct list_head *again)
do {
req = list_first_entry(again, struct io_kiocb, list);
list_del(&req->list);
- refcount_inc(&req->refs);
- io_queue_async_work(req);
+ if (req->task == current) {
+ refcount_inc(&req->refs);
+ io_queue_async_work(req);
+ } else {
+ io_cqring_add_event(req, -EAGAIN);
+ req_set_fail_links(req);
+ io_put_req(req);
+ }
} while (!list_empty(again));
}
@@ -1937,12 +1950,6 @@ static void kiocb_end_write(struct io_kiocb *req)
file_end_write(req->file);
}
-static inline void req_set_fail_links(struct io_kiocb *req)
-{
- if ((req->flags & (REQ_F_LINK | REQ_F_HARDLINK)) == REQ_F_LINK)
- req->flags |= REQ_F_FAIL_LINK;
-}
-
static void io_complete_rw_common(struct kiocb *kiocb, long res)
{
struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(kiocb, struct io_kiocb, rw.kiocb);
@@ -2137,6 +2144,8 @@ static int io_prep_rw(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
kiocb->ki_flags |= IOCB_HIPRI;
kiocb->ki_complete = io_complete_rw_iopoll;
+ req->task = current;
+ get_task_struct(current);
req->result = 0;
req->iopoll_completed = 0;
} else {
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-12 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-11 15:54 [RFC] do_iopoll() and *grab_env() Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-12 17:02 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-12 17:30 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-12 17:55 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-12 18:02 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-06-12 18:33 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-12 18:46 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-06-12 19:42 ` Jens Axboe
2020-06-13 19:12 ` Pavel Begunkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox