linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH liburing v2 0/1] test: add epoll test case

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]

Message-ID: <CAGxU2F6qvW28=ULNUi-UHethus2bO6VXYX127HOcH_KPToZC-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:33:48 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH liburing v2 0/1] test: add epoll test case



On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:39 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 1/31/20 7:29 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> > this is a v2 of the epoll test.
> >
> > v1 -> v2:
> >     - if IORING_FEAT_NODROP is not available, avoid to overflow the CQ
> >     - add 2 new tests to test epoll with IORING_FEAT_NODROP
> >     - cleanups
> >
> > There are 4 sub-tests:
> >     1. test_epoll
> >     2. test_epoll_sqpoll
> >     3. test_epoll_nodrop
> >     4. test_epoll_sqpoll_nodrop
> >
> > In the first 2 tests, I try to avoid to queue more requests than we have room
> > for in the CQ ring. These work fine, I have no faults.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > In the tests 3 and 4, if IORING_FEAT_NODROP is supported, I try to submit as
> > much as I can until I get a -EBUSY, but they often fail in this way:
> > the submitter manages to submit everything, the receiver receives all the
> > submitted bytes, but the cleaner loses completion events (I also tried to put a
> > timeout to epoll_wait() in the cleaner to be sure that it is not related to the
> > patch that I send some weeks ago, but the situation doesn't change, it's like
> > there is still overflow in the CQ).
> >
> > Next week I'll try to investigate better which is the problem.
>
> Does it change if you have an io_uring_enter() with GETEVENTS set? I wonder if
> you just pruned the CQ ring but didn't flush the internal side.

If I do io_uring_enter() with GETEVENTS set and wait_nr = 0 it solves
the issue, I think because we call io_cqring_events() that flushes the
overflow list.

At this point, should we call io_cqring_events() (that flushes the
overflow list) in io_uring_poll()?
I mean something like this:

diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 77f22c3da30f..2769451af89a 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -6301,7 +6301,7 @@ static __poll_t io_uring_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
        if (READ_ONCE(ctx->rings->sq.tail) - ctx->cached_sq_head !=
            ctx->rings->sq_ring_entries)
                mask |= EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM;
-       if (READ_ONCE(ctx->rings->cq.head) != ctx->cached_cq_tail)
+       if (!io_cqring_events(ctx, false))
                mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;

        return mask;

Thanks,
Stefano