linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/15] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it

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: <029947e3-7615-e446-3194-d48827730e1d@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:39:53 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if
 file provides it

On 18/06/2020 17:43, Jens Axboe wrote:
> If the file is flagged with FMODE_BUF_RASYNC, then we don't have to punt
> the buffered read to an io-wq worker. Instead we can rely on page
> unlocking callbacks to support retry based async IO. This is a lot more
> efficient than doing async thread offload.
> 
> The retry is done similarly to how we handle poll based retry. From
> the unlock callback, we simply queue the retry to a task_work based
> handler.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> ---
>  fs/io_uring.c | 145 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 137 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
...
>  static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  {
>  	struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
> @@ -2784,10 +2907,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  		unsigned long nr_segs = iter.nr_segs;
>  		ssize_t ret2 = 0;
>  
> -		if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
> -			ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
> -		else
> -			ret2 = loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, kiocb, &iter);
> +		ret2 = io_iter_do_read(req, &iter);
>  
>  		/* Catch -EAGAIN return for forced non-blocking submission */
>  		if (!force_nonblock || (ret2 != -EAGAIN && ret2 != -EIO)) {
> @@ -2799,17 +2919,26 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>  			ret = io_setup_async_rw(req, io_size, iovec,
>  						inline_vecs, &iter);
>  			if (ret)
> -				goto out_free;
> +				goto out;
>  			/* any defer here is final, must blocking retry */
>  			if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
>  			    !file_can_poll(req->file))
>  				req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
> +			/* if we can retry, do so with the callbacks armed */
> +			if (io_rw_should_retry(req)) {
> +				ret2 = io_iter_do_read(req, &iter);
> +				if (ret2 == -EIOCBQUEUED) {
> +					goto out;
> +				} else if (ret2 != -EAGAIN) {
> +					kiocb_done(kiocb, ret2);
> +					goto out;
> +				}
> +			}
> +			kiocb->ki_flags &= ~IOCB_WAITQ;
>  			return -EAGAIN;
>  		}
>  	}
> -out_free:
> -	kfree(iovec);
> -	req->flags &= ~REQ_F_NEED_CLEANUP;

This looks fishy. For instance, if it fails early on rw_verify_area(), how would
it free yet on-stack iovec? Is it handled somehow?

> +out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov