linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Asynchronous passthrough ioctl

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: <2d37d0ca-5853-4bb6-1582-551b9044040c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:38:03 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc:     Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, sagi@...mberg.me,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
        Selvakumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Asynchronous passthrough ioctl

On 1/28/21 5:04 AM, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 9:32 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/01/2021 15:42, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2021 15:00, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>>>> This RFC patchset adds asynchronous ioctl capability for NVMe devices.
>>>> Purpose of RFC is to get the feedback and optimize the path.
>>>>
>>>> At the uppermost io-uring layer, a new opcode IORING_OP_IOCTL_PT is
>>>> presented to user-space applications. Like regular-ioctl, it takes
>>>> ioctl opcode and an optional argument (ioctl-specific input/output
>>>> parameter). Unlike regular-ioctl, it is made to skip the block-layer
>>>> and reach directly to the underlying driver (nvme in the case of this
>>>> patchset). This path between io-uring and nvme is via a newly
>>>> introduced block-device operation "async_ioctl". This operation
>>>> expects io-uring to supply a callback function which can be used to
>>>> report completion at later stage.
>>>>
>>>> For a regular ioctl, NVMe driver submits the command to the device and
>>>> the submitter (task) is made to wait until completion arrives. For
>>>> async-ioctl, completion is decoupled from submission. Submitter goes
>>>> back to its business without waiting for nvme-completion. When
>>>> nvme-completion arrives, it informs io-uring via the registered
>>>> completion-handler. But some ioctls may require updating certain
>>>> ioctl-specific fields which can be accessed only in context of the
>>>> submitter task. For that reason, NVMe driver uses task-work infra for
>>>> that ioctl-specific update. Since task-work is not exported, it cannot
>>>> be referenced when nvme is compiled as a module. Therefore, one of the
>>>> patch exports task-work API.
>>>>
>>>> Here goes example of usage (pseudo-code).
>>>> Actual nvme-cli source, modified to issue all ioctls via this opcode
>>>> is present at-
>>>> https://github.com/joshkan/nvme-cli/commit/a008a733f24ab5593e7874cfbc69ee04e88068c5
>>>
>>> see https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=io_uring-fops
>>>
>>> Looks like good time to bring that branch/discussion back
>>
>> a bit more context:
>> https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/270
> 
> Thanks, it looked good. It seems key differences (compared to
> uring-patch that I posted) are -
> 1. using file-operation instead of block-dev operation.

Right, it's meant to span wider than just block devices.

> 2. repurpose the sqe memory for ioctl-cmd. If an application does
> ioctl with <=40 bytes of cmd, it does not have to allocate ioctl-cmd.
> That's nifty. We still need to support passing larger-cmd (e.g.
> nvme-passthru ioctl takes 72 bytes) but that shouldn't get too
> difficult I suppose.

It's actually 48 bytes in the as-posted version, and I've bumped it to
56 bytes in the latest branch. So not quite enough for everything,
nothing ever will be, but should work for a lot of cases without
requiring per-command allocations just for the actual command.

> And for some ioctls, driver may still need to use task-work to update
> the user-space pointers (embedded in uring/ioctl cmd) during
> completion.
> 
> @Jens - will it be fine if I start looking at plumbing nvme-part of
> this series on top of your work?

Sure, go ahead. Just beware that things are still changing, so you might
have to adapt it a few times. It's still early days, but I do think
that's the way forward in providing controlled access to what is
basically async ioctls.

-- 
Jens Axboe