linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while registering/unregistering eventfd

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]

Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:06:40 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     fam.zheng@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: avoid ring quiesce while
 registering/unregistering eventfd

On 2/3/22 12:00 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 2/3/22 18:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 11:26 AM, Usama Arif wrote:
>>> Hmm, maybe i didn't understand you and Pavel correctly. Are you
>>> suggesting to do the below diff over patch 3? I dont think that would be
>>> correct, as it is possible that just after checking if ctx->io_ev_fd is
>>> present unregister can be called by another thread and set ctx->io_ev_fd
>>> to NULL that would cause a NULL pointer exception later? In the current
>>> patch, the check of whether ev_fd exists happens as the first thing
>>> after rcu_read_lock and the rcu_read_lock are extremely cheap i believe.
>>
>> They are cheap, but they are still noticeable at high requests/sec
>> rates. So would be best to avoid them.
>>
>> And yes it's obviously racy, there's the potential to miss an eventfd
>> notification if it races with registering an eventfd descriptor. But
>> that's not really a concern, as if you register with inflight IO
>> pending, then that always exists just depending on timing. The only
>> thing I care about here is that it's always _safe_. Hence something ala
>> what you did below is totally fine, as we're re-evaluating under rcu
>> protection.
> 
> Indeed, the patch doesn't have any formal guarantees for propagation
> to already inflight requests, so this extra unsynchronised check
> doesn't change anything.
> 
> I'm still more сurious why we need RCU and extra complexity when
> apparently there is no use case for that. If it's only about
> initial initialisation, then as I described there is a much
> simpler approach.

Would be nice if we could get rid of the quiesce code in general, but I
haven't done a check to see what'd be missing after this...

-- 
Jens Axboe