lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:22:46 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring: don't wait when under-submitting

On 12/13/19 12:51 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> There is no reliable way to submit and wait in a single syscall, as
> io_submit_sqes() may under-consume sqes (in case of an early error).
> Then it will wait for not-yet-submitted requests, deadlocking the user
> in most cases.

Why not just cap the wait_nr? If someone does to_submit = 8, wait_nr = 8,
and we only submit 4, just wait for 4? Ala:

diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 81219a631a6d..4a76ccbb7856 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -5272,6 +5272,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(io_uring_enter, unsigned int, fd, u32, to_submit,
 		submitted = io_submit_sqes(ctx, to_submit, f.file, fd,
 					   &cur_mm, false);
 		mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
+		if (submitted <= 0)
+			goto done;
+		if (submitted != to_submit && min_complete > submitted)
+			min_complete = submitted;
 	}
 	if (flags & IORING_ENTER_GETEVENTS) {
 		unsigned nr_events = 0;
@@ -5284,7 +5288,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(io_uring_enter, unsigned int, fd, u32, to_submit,
 			ret = io_cqring_wait(ctx, min_complete, sig, sigsz);
 		}
 	}
-
+done:
 	percpu_ref_put(&ctx->refs);
 out_fput:
 	fdput(f);

-- 
Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ