[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5a6f77a-3404-0dc8-ac6e-584737d71a33@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:55:13 +0300
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] io_uring: defer logic based on shared data
On 25/10/2019 19:44, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/25/19 10:40 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 25/10/2019 19:32, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/25/19 10:27 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/19 10:21 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> On 25/10/2019 19:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/25/19 3:55 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>> I found 2 problems with __io_sequence_defer().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. it uses @sq_dropped, but doesn't consider @cq_overflow
>>>>>>> 2. @sq_dropped and @cq_overflow are write-shared with userspace, so
>>>>>>> it can be maliciously changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see sent liburing test (test/defer *_hung()), which left an unkillable
>>>>>>> process for me
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, how about the below. I'll split this in two, as it's really two
>>>>>> separate fixes.
>>>>> cached_sq_dropped is good, but I was concerned about cached_cq_overflow.
>>>>> io_cqring_fill_event() can be called in async, so shouldn't we do some
>>>>> synchronisation then?
>>>>
>>>> We should probably make it an atomic just to be on the safe side, I'll
>>>> update the series.
>>>
>>> Here we go, patch 1:
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-linus&id=f2a241f596ed9e12b7c8f960e79ccda8053ea294
>>>
>>> patch 2:
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-linus&id=b7d0297d2df5bfa0d1ecf9d6c66d23676751ef6a
>>>
>> 1. submit rqs (not yet completed)
>> 2. poll_list is empty, inflight = 0
>> 3. async completed and placed into poll_list
>>
>> So, poll_list is not empty, but we won't get to polling again.
>> At least until someone submitted something.
>
> But if they are issued, the will sit in ->poll_list as well. That list
> holds both "submitted, but pending" and completed entries.
>
Missed it, then should work. Thanks!
> + ret = iters = 0;
A small suggestion, could we just initialise it in declaration
to be a bit more concise?
e.g. int ret = 0, iters = 0;
Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
And let me test it as both patches are ready.
--
Yours sincerely,
Pavel Begunkov
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists