linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: sendfile handles O_NONBLOCK of out

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 8 May 2022 11:28:07 -0700
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...nel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: sendfile handles O_NONBLOCK of out_fd

On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 02:52:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 00:01:46 -0700 Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew, could you take a look at this patch?
> > 
> > Here is a small reproducer for the problem:
> > 
> > #define _GNU_SOURCE /* See feature_test_macros(7) */
> > #include <fcntl.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > #include <sys/types.h>
> > #include <sys/sendfile.h>
> > 
> > 
> > #define FILE_SIZE (1UL << 30)
> > int main(int argc, char **argv) {
> >         int p[2], fd;
> > 
> >         if (pipe2(p, O_NONBLOCK))
> >                 return 1;
> > 
> >         fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR | O_TMPFILE, 0666);
> >         if (fd < 0)
> >                 return 1;
> >         ftruncate(fd, FILE_SIZE);
> > 
> >         if (sendfile(p[1], fd, 0, FILE_SIZE) == -1) {
> >                 fprintf(stderr, "FAIL\n");
> >         }
> >         if (sendfile(p[1], fd, 0, FILE_SIZE) != -1 || errno != EAGAIN) {
> >                 fprintf(stderr, "FAIL\n");
> >         }
> >         return 0;
> > }
> > 
> > It worked before b964bf53e540, it is stuck after b964bf53e540, and it
> > works again with this fix.
> 
> Thanks.  How did b964bf53e540 cause this?  do_splice_direct()
> accidentally does the right thing even when SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK was not
> passed?

do_splice_direct() calls pipe_write that handles O_NONBLOCK. Here is
a trace log from the reproducer:

 1)               |  __x64_sys_sendfile64() {
 1)               |    do_sendfile() {
 1)               |      __fdget()
 1)               |      rw_verify_area()
 1)               |      __fdget()
 1)               |      rw_verify_area()
 1)               |      do_splice_direct() {
 1)               |        rw_verify_area()
 1)               |        splice_direct_to_actor() {
 1)               |          do_splice_to() {
 1)               |            rw_verify_area()
 1)               |            generic_file_splice_read()
 1) + 74.153 us   |          }
 1)               |          direct_splice_actor() {
 1)               |            iter_file_splice_write() {
 1)               |              __kmalloc()
 1)   0.148 us    |              pipe_lock();
 1)   0.153 us    |              splice_from_pipe_next.part.0();
 1)   0.162 us    |              page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm();
... 16 times
 1)   0.159 us    |              page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm();
 1)               |              vfs_iter_write() {
 1)               |                do_iter_write() {
 1)               |                  rw_verify_area()
 1)               |                  do_iter_readv_writev() {
 1)               |                    pipe_write() {
 1)               |                      mutex_lock()
 1)   0.153 us    |                      mutex_unlock();
 1)   1.368 us    |                    }
 1)   1.686 us    |                  }
 1)   5.798 us    |                }
 1)   6.084 us    |              }
 1)   0.174 us    |              kfree();
 1)   0.152 us    |              pipe_unlock();
 1) + 14.461 us   |            }
 1) + 14.783 us   |          }
 1)   0.164 us    |          page_cache_pipe_buf_release();
... 16 times
 1)   0.161 us    |          page_cache_pipe_buf_release();
 1)               |          touch_atime()
 1) + 95.854 us   |        }
 1) + 99.784 us   |      }
 1) ! 107.393 us  |    }
 1) ! 107.699 us  |  }

> 
> I assume that Al will get to this.  Meanwhile I can toss it
> into linux-next to get some exposure and so it won't be lost.
>