[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200923114419.71218-2-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:44:15 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhuyinyin@...edance.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] io_uring: Fix resource leaking when kill the process
From: Yinyin Zhu <zhuyinyin@...edance.com>
The commit
1c4404efcf2c0> ("<io_uring: make sure async workqueue is canceled on exit>")
doesn't solve the resource leak problem totally! When kworker is doing a
io task for the io_uring, The process which submitted the io task has
received a SIGKILL signal from the user. Then the io_cancel_async_work
function could have sent a SIGINT signal to the kworker, but the judging
condition is wrong. So it doesn't send a SIGINT signal to the kworker,
then caused the resource leaking problem.
Why the juding condition is wrong? The process is a multi-threaded process,
we call the thread of the process which has submitted the io task Thread1.
So the req->task is the current macro of the Thread1. when all the threads
of the process have done exit procedure, the last thread will call the
io_cancel_async_work, but the last thread may not the Thread1, so the task
is not equal and doesn't send the SIGINT signal. To fix this bug, we alter
the task attribute of the req with struct files_struct. And check the files
instead.
Fixes: 1c4404efcf2c0 ("io_uring: make sure async workqueue is canceled on exit")
Signed-off-by: Yinyin Zhu <zhuyinyin@...edance.com>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 454cef93a39e8..a1350c7c50055 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ struct io_kiocb {
u64 user_data;
u32 result;
u32 sequence;
- struct task_struct *task;
+ struct files_struct *files;
struct fs_struct *fs;
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static inline void io_queue_async_work(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
}
}
- req->task = current;
+ req->files = current->files;
spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->task_lock, flags);
list_add(&req->task_list, &ctx->task_list);
@@ -3717,7 +3717,7 @@ static int io_uring_fasync(int fd, struct file *file, int on)
}
static void io_cancel_async_work(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
- struct task_struct *task)
+ struct files_struct *files)
{
if (list_empty(&ctx->task_list))
return;
@@ -3729,7 +3729,7 @@ static void io_cancel_async_work(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
req = list_first_entry(&ctx->task_list, struct io_kiocb, task_list);
list_del_init(&req->task_list);
req->flags |= REQ_F_CANCEL;
- if (req->work_task && (!task || req->task == task))
+ if (req->work_task && (!files || req->files == files))
send_sig(SIGINT, req->work_task, 1);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->task_lock);
@@ -3754,7 +3754,7 @@ static int io_uring_flush(struct file *file, void *data)
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = file->private_data;
if (fatal_signal_pending(current) || (current->flags & PF_EXITING))
- io_cancel_async_work(ctx, current);
+ io_cancel_async_work(ctx, data);
return 0;
}
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists