linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] io_uring: add support for zone-append

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e871eef2-8a93-fdbc-b762-2923526a2db4@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:08:28 +0300
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>
Cc:     Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        bcrl@...ck.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] io_uring: add support for zone-append

On 27/07/2020 23:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/27/20 1:16 PM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:00 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/24/20 9:49 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> index 7809ab2..6510cf5 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> @@ -1284,8 +1301,15 @@ static void __io_cqring_fill_event(struct io_kiocb *req, long res, long cflags)
>>>>       cqe = io_get_cqring(ctx);
>>>>       if (likely(cqe)) {
>>>>               WRITE_ONCE(cqe->user_data, req->user_data);
>>>> -             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res, res);
>>>> -             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->flags, cflags);
>>>> +             if (unlikely(req->flags & REQ_F_ZONE_APPEND)) {
>>>> +                     if (likely(res > 0))
>>>> +                             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res64, req->rw.append_offset);
>>>> +                     else
>>>> +                             WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res64, res);
>>>> +             } else {
>>>> +                     WRITE_ONCE(cqe->res, res);
>>>> +                     WRITE_ONCE(cqe->flags, cflags);
>>>> +             }
>>>
>>> This would be nice to keep out of the fast path, if possible.
>>
>> I was thinking of keeping a function-pointer (in io_kiocb) during
>> submission. That would have avoided this check......but argument count
>> differs, so it did not add up.
> 
> But that'd grow the io_kiocb just for this use case, which is arguably
> even worse. Unless you can keep it in the per-request private data,
> but there's no more room there for the regular read/write side.
> 
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
>>>> index 92c2269..2580d93 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
>>>> @@ -156,8 +156,13 @@ enum {
>>>>   */
>>>>  struct io_uring_cqe {
>>>>       __u64   user_data;      /* sqe->data submission passed back */
>>>> -     __s32   res;            /* result code for this event */
>>>> -     __u32   flags;
>>>> +     union {
>>>> +             struct {
>>>> +                     __s32   res;    /* result code for this event */
>>>> +                     __u32   flags;
>>>> +             };
>>>> +             __s64   res64;  /* appending offset for zone append */
>>>> +     };
>>>>  };
>>>
>>> Is this a compatible change, both for now but also going forward? You
>>> could randomly have IORING_CQE_F_BUFFER set, or any other future flags.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't quite understand the concern. CQE_F_BUFFER is not
>> used/set for write currently, so it looked compatible at this point.
> 
> Not worried about that, since we won't ever use that for writes. But it
> is a potential headache down the line for other flags, if they apply to
> normal writes.
> 
>> Yes, no room for future flags for this operation.
>> Do you see any other way to enable this support in io-uring?
> 
> Honestly I think the only viable option is as we discussed previously,
> pass in a pointer to a 64-bit type where we can copy the additional
> completion information to.

TBH, I hate the idea of such overhead/latency at times when SSDs can
serve writes in less than 10ms. Any chance you measured how long does it
take to drag through task_work?

> 
>>> Layout would also be different between big and little endian, so not
>>> even that easy to set aside a flag for this. But even if that was done,
>>> we'd still have this weird API where liburing or the app would need to
>>> distinguish this cqe from all others based on... the user_data? Hence
>>> liburing can't do it, only the app would be able to.
>>>
>>> Just seems like a hack to me.
>>
>> Yes, only user_data to distinguish. Do liburing helpers need to look
>> at cqe->res (and decide something) before returning the cqe to
>> application?
> 
> They generally don't, outside of the internal timeout. But it's an issue
> for the API, as it forces applications to handle the CQEs a certain way.
> Normally there's flexibility. This makes the append writes behave
> differently than everything else, which is never a good idea.
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov