From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Dmitrii Dolgov <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:26:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote:
> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed
> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer
> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting
> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of
> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I
> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft
> such request to io_uring.
I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the
problem is probably deeper.
1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though
there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs
and put only as much.
2. Jens, there is another line bothering me, could you take a look?
io_free_req_many()
{
...
if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) ...;
else
rb->reqs[i] = NULL;
...
}
It zeroes rb->reqs[i], calls __io_req_aux_free(), but did not free
memory for the request itself. Is it as intended?
>
> More details about configuration:
>
> [global]
> filename=/dev/vda
> rw=randread
> bs=256k
> direct=1
> time_based=1
> randrepeat=1
> gtod_reduce=1
>
> [fiotest]
>
> fio test.fio \
> --readonly \
> --ioengine=io_uring \
> --iodepth 1024 \
> --fixedbufs \
> --hipri \
> --numjobs=1 \
> --runtime=10
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Dolgov <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/io_uring.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> I'm not entirely sure if my analysis is correct, but since this change
> fixes the issue for me, I've decided to post it.
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index c770c2c0eb52..c5e69dfc0221 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -1232,7 +1232,8 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb)
> do_free:
> kmem_cache_free_bulk(req_cachep, rb->to_free, rb->reqs);
> percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free);
> - percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free);
> + if (ctx->file_data)
> + percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free);
> rb->to_free = rb->need_iter = 0;
> }
>
>
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-09 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-09 13:17 [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized Dmitrii Dolgov
2020-01-09 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-01-09 14:51 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-01-09 15:23 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-09 15:32 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-01-09 15:34 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-09 16:04 ` Dmitry Dolgov
2020-01-09 16:19 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-09 14:45 ` Jens Axboe
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] \
[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