public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: fix leaks on IOPOLL and CQE_SKIP
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:51:20 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 4/15/22 4:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/15/22 4:41 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 4/15/22 23:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 4/15/22 3:05 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/22 17:46, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/22 10:41 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/22 10:24 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>> If all completed requests in io_do_iopoll() were marked with
>>>>>>> REQ_F_CQE_SKIP, we'll not only skip CQE posting but also
>>>>>>> io_free_batch_list() leaking memory and resources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Move @nr_events increment before REQ_F_CQE_SKIP check. We'll potentially
>>>>>>> return the value greater than the real one, but iopolling will deal with
>>>>>>> it and the userspace will re-iopoll if needed. In anyway, I don't think
>>>>>>> there are many use cases for REQ_F_CQE_SKIP + IOPOLL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah good catch - yes probably not much practical concern, as the lack of
>>>>>> ordering for file IO means that CQE_SKIP isn't really useful for that
>>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>> One potential snag is with the change we're now doing
>>>>> io_cqring_ev_posted_iopoll() even if didn't post an event. Again
>>>>> probably not a practical concern, but it is theoretically a violation
>>>>> if an eventfd is used.
>>>> Looks this didn't get applied. Are you concerned about eventfd?
>>>
>>> Yep, was hoping to get a reply back, so just deferred it for now.
>>>
>>>> Is there any good reason why the userspace can't tolerate spurious
>>>> eventfd events? Because I don't think we should care this case
>>>
>>> I always forget the details on that, but we've had cases like this in
>>> the past where some applications assume that if they got N eventfd
>>> events, then are are also N events in the ring. Which granted is a bit
>>> odd, but it does also make some sense. Why would you have more eventfd
>>> events posted than events?
>>
>> For the same reason why it can get less eventfd events than there are
>> CQEs, as for me it's only a communication channel but not a
>> replacement for completion events.
> 
> That part is inherently racy in that we might get some CQEs while we
> respond to the initial eventfd notifications. But I'm totally agreeing
> with you, and it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
> 
>> Ok, we don't want to break old applications, but it's a new most
>> probably not widely used feature, and we can say that the userspace
>> has to handle spurious eventfd.
> 
> If I were to guess, I'd say it's probably epoll + eventfd conversions.
> But it should just be made explicit. Since events reaped and checked
> happen differently anyway, it seems like a bad assumption to make that
> eventfd notifications == events available.

The patch is against the 5.19 branch, but it might be a better idea
to do this for 5.18 as the 5.17 backport will then not need
assistance. Can you send it against io_uring-5.18?

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-15 23:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-12 16:24 [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: fix leaks on IOPOLL and CQE_SKIP Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-12 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-12 16:46   ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-15 21:05     ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-15 22:03       ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-15 22:41         ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-15 22:53           ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-15 23:51             ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2022-04-16  8:36               ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-16  8:39             ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-04-16 13:23               ` Jens Axboe
2022-04-16  8:34           ` 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