[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f7f61d3-b3f9-43db-ad32-ee502dc06c8b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 23:00:41 +0300
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: fix deferred req iovec leak
On 06/02/2020 22:56, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/6/20 10:16 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 06/02/2020 20:04, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2020 19:51, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> After defer, a request will be prepared, that includes allocating iovec
>>>> if needed, and then submitted through io_wq_submit_work() but not custom
>>>> handler (e.g. io_rw_async()/io_sendrecv_async()). However, it'll leak
>>>> iovec, as it's in io-wq and the code goes as follows:
>>>>
>>>> io_read() {
>>>> if (!io_wq_current_is_worker())
>>>> kfree(iovec);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Put all deallocation logic in io_{read,write,send,recv}(), which will
>>>> leave the memory, if going async with -EAGAIN.
>>>>
>>> Interestingly, this will fail badly if it returns -EAGAIN from io-wq context.
>>> Apparently, I need to do v2.
>>>
>> Or not...
>> Jens, can you please explain what's with the -EAGAIN handling in
>> io_wq_submit_work()? Checking the code, it seems neither of
>> read/write/recv/send can return -EAGAIN from async context (i.e.
>> force_nonblock=false). Are there other ops that can do it?
>
> Nobody should return -EAGAIN with force_nonblock=false, they should
> end the io_kiocb inline for that.
>
If so for those 4, then the patch should work well.
--
Pavel Begunkov
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists