linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io_uring: store back buffer in case of failure

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: <5007a641-23cf-195d-87ee-de193e19dc20@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:37:50 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: store back buffer in case of failure

On 6/16/21 3:44 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/16/21 8:01 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/16/21 2:42 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2021-06-15 at 15:51 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Ditto for this one, don't see it in my email nor on the list.
>>>>
>>> I can resend you a private copy of this one but as Pavel pointed out,
>>> it contains fatal flaws.
>>>
>>> So unless someone can tell me that the idea is interesting and has
>>> potential and can give me some a hint or 2 about how to address the
>>> challenges to fix the current flaws, it is pretty much a show stopper
>>> to me and I think that I am going to let it go...
>>
>> It'd need to go through some other context, e.g. task context.
>> task_work_add() + custom handler would work, either buf-select
>> synchronisation can be reworked, but both would rather be
>> bulky and not great.
> 
> Indeed - that'd solve both the passing around of locking state which
> I really don't like, and make it much simpler. Just use task work for
> the re-insert, and you can grab the ring lock unconditionally from
> there.

Hmm, it might be much simpler than I thought if we allocate
a separate struct callback_head, i.e. task_work, queued it
with exactly task_work_add() but not io_req_task_work_add(),
and continue with the request handler. 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov