[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6714cb8f-894c-9ff1-7b3a-4f86d7dbe52a@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:57:38 +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 1/4] io_uring: fix hanging iopoll in case of -EAGAIN
On 23/06/2020 05:18, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/22/20 8:07 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/22/20 4:16 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> io_do_iopoll() won't do anything with a request unless
>>> req->iopoll_completed is set. So io_complete_rw_iopoll() has to set
>>> it, otherwise io_do_iopoll() will poll a file again and again even
>>> though the request of interest was completed long ago.
>>
>> I need to look at this again, because with this change, I previously
>> got various use-after-free. I haven't seen any issues with it, but
>> I agree, from a quick look that I'm not quite sure how it's currently
>> not causing hangs. Yet I haven't seen any, with targeted -EAGAIN
>> testing.
Can io_complete_rw_iopoll() get -EAGAIN after being successfully enqueued
(i.e. EIOCBQUEUED)? It's reliably fails for me, because my hacked nullblk
_can_ (i.e. probabilistically returns BLK_STS_AGAIN from ->iopoll()).
>
> Ah I think I know what it is - if we run into:
>
> if (req->result == -EAGAIN)
> return -EAGAIN
>
> in io_issue_sqe() and race with it, we'll reissue twice potentially.
> So the above isn't quite enough, we'll need something a bit broader.
I see, I'll deal with it.
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists