On 28/01/2020 02:00, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/27/20 3:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/27/20 2:45 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2020 23:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/20 7:07 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2020 4:39 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/20 6:29 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/26/2020 8:00 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/26/20 8:11 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2020 4:51 AM, Daurnimator wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:16, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ok. I can't promise it'll play handy for sharing. Though, you'll be out
>>>>>>> of space in struct io_uring_params soon anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to keep what we have for now, as I'm really not imagining a
>>>>>> lot more sharing - what else would we share? So let's not over-design
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. I prefer a ptr to an extendable struct, that will take the
>>>>> last u64, when needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it's still better to share through file descriptors. It's just
>>>>> not secure enough the way it's now.
>>>>
>>>> Is the file descriptor value really a good choice? We just had some
>>>> confusion on ring sharing across forks. Not sure using an fd value
>>>> is a sane "key" to use across processes.
>>>>
>>> As I see it, the problem with @mm is that uring is dead-bound to it.
>>> For example, a process can create and send uring (e.g. via socket),
>>> and then be killed. And that basically means
>>> 1. @mm of the process is locked just because of the sent uring
>>> instance.
>>> 2. a process may have an io_uring, which bound to @mm of another
>>> process, even though the layouts may be completely different.
>>>
>>> File descriptors are different here, because io_uring doesn't know
>>> about them, They are controlled by the userspace (send, dup, fork,
>>> etc), and don't sabotage all isolation work done in the kernel. A dire
>>> example here is stealing io-wq from within a container, which is
>>> trivial with global self-made id. I would love to hear, if I am
>>> mistaken somewhere.
>>>
>>> Is there some better option?
>>
>> OK, so how about this:
>>
>> - We use the 'fd' as the lookup key. This makes it easy since we can
>>   just check if it's a io_uring instance or not, we don't need to do any
>>   tracking on the side. It also means that the application asking for
>>   sharing must already have some relationship to the process that
>>   created the ring.

Yeah, that's exactly the point.

>>
>> - mm/creds must be transferred through the work item. Any SQE done on
>>   behalf of io_uring_enter() directly already has that, if punted we
>>   must pass the creds and mm. This means we break the static setup of
>>   io_wq->mm/creds. It also means that we probably have to add that to
>>   io_wq_work, which kind of sucks, but...

ehh, juggling mm's... But don't have anything nicer myself.

> It'd fix Stefan's worry too.
> 
>> I think with that we have a decent setup, that's also safe. I've dropped
>> the sharing patches for now, from the 5.6 tree.
> 
> So one concern might be SQPOLL, it'll have to use the ctx creds and mm
> as usual. I guess that is ok.
> 

OK. I'll send the patches for the first part now, and take a look at the second
one a bit latter if isn't done until then.


-- 
Pavel Begunkov