| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <92f753ea9b542675165319aa93fedddde45a2379.camel@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:15:27 +0000
From: Dylan Yudaken <dylany@...com>
To: "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"asml.silence@...il.com" <asml.silence@...il.com>,
"io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 8/8] io_uring: multishot recv
On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 09:17 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/28/22 9:02 AM, Dylan Yudaken wrote:
> > @@ -399,13 +401,22 @@ int io_recvmsg_prep(struct io_kiocb *req,
> > const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
> > sr->umsg = u64_to_user_ptr(READ_ONCE(sqe->addr));
> > sr->len = READ_ONCE(sqe->len);
> > sr->flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->addr2);
> > - if (sr->flags & ~IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST)
> > + if (sr->flags & ~(RECVMSG_FLAGS))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > sr->msg_flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->msg_flags) | MSG_NOSIGNAL;
> > if (sr->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT)
> > req->flags |= REQ_F_NOWAIT;
> > if (sr->msg_flags & MSG_ERRQUEUE)
> > req->flags |= REQ_F_CLEAR_POLLIN;
> > + if (sr->flags & IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT) {
> > + if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_BUFFER_SELECT))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + if (sr->msg_flags & MSG_WAITALL)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + if (req->opcode == IORING_OP_RECV && sr->len)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + req->flags |= REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT;
> > + }
>
> Do we want to forbid not using provided buffers? If you have a ping-
> pong
> type setup, eg you know you'll have to send something before you
> receive
> anything again, seems like it'd be feasible to use this with a normal
> buffer?
>
> I strongly suspect that most use cases will use provided buffers for
> this, just wondering if there are any particular reasons for
> forbidding
> it explicitly.
My feeling is that getting the user API right without provided buffers
is going to be potentially complex, and probably will overlap with the
MSG_WAITALL case.
Expanding it later is easy but without an actual use case I think
leaving it as provided buffers only for now makes sense (as you say,
this is by far the most likely usecase).
>
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > if (req->ctx->compat)
> > @@ -415,6 +426,14 @@ int io_recvmsg_prep(struct io_kiocb *req,
> > const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static inline void io_recv_prep_retry(struct io_kiocb *req)
> > +{
> > + struct io_sr_msg *sr = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req);
> > +
> > + sr->done_io = 0;
> > + sr->len = 0; /* get from the provided buffer */
> > +}
> > +
> > int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> > {
> > struct io_sr_msg *sr = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req);
> > @@ -424,6 +443,7 @@ int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned
> > int issue_flags)
> > unsigned flags;
> > int ret, min_ret = 0;
> > bool force_nonblock = issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK;
> > + size_t len = sr->len;
> >
> > sock = sock_from_file(req->file);
> > if (unlikely(!sock))
> > @@ -442,16 +462,17 @@ int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned
> > int issue_flags)
> > (sr->flags & IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST))
> > return io_setup_async_msg(req, kmsg);
> >
> > +retry_multishot:
> > if (io_do_buffer_select(req)) {
> > void __user *buf;
> >
> > - buf = io_buffer_select(req, &sr->len, issue_flags);
> > + buf = io_buffer_select(req, &len, issue_flags);
> > if (!buf)
> > return -ENOBUFS;
> > kmsg->fast_iov[0].iov_base = buf;
> > - kmsg->fast_iov[0].iov_len = sr->len;
> > + kmsg->fast_iov[0].iov_len = len;
> > iov_iter_init(&kmsg->msg.msg_iter, READ, kmsg-
> > >fast_iov, 1,
> > - sr->len);
> > + len);
> > }
> >
> > flags = sr->msg_flags;
> > @@ -463,8 +484,15 @@ int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned
> > int issue_flags)
> > kmsg->msg.msg_get_inq = 1;
> > ret = __sys_recvmsg_sock(sock, &kmsg->msg, sr->umsg, kmsg-
> > >uaddr, flags);
> > if (ret < min_ret) {
> > - if (ret == -EAGAIN && force_nonblock)
> > - return io_setup_async_msg(req, kmsg);
> > + if (ret == -EAGAIN && force_nonblock) {
> > + ret = io_setup_async_msg(req, kmsg);
> > + if (ret == -EAGAIN && (req->flags &
> > IO_APOLL_MULTI_POLLED) ==
> > +
> > IO_APOLL_MULTI_POLLED) {
> > + io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
> > + ret = IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE;
> > + }
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS)
> > ret = -EINTR;
> > if (ret > 0 && io_net_retry(sock, flags)) {
> > @@ -491,8 +519,24 @@ int io_recvmsg(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned
> > int issue_flags)
> > cflags = io_put_kbuf(req, issue_flags);
> > if (kmsg->msg.msg_inq)
> > cflags |= IORING_CQE_F_SOCK_NONEMPTY;
> > +
> > + if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT)) {
> > + io_req_set_res(req, ret, cflags);
> > + return IOU_OK;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ret > 0) {
> > + if (io_post_aux_cqe(req->ctx, req->cqe.user_data,
> > ret,
> > + cflags | IORING_CQE_F_MORE)) {
> > + io_recv_prep_retry(req);
> > + goto retry_multishot;
> > + } else {
> > + ret = -ECANCELED;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > io_req_set_res(req, ret, cflags);
> > - return IOU_OK;
> > + return req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED ? IOU_STOP_MULTISHOT :
> > ret;
> > }
>
> Minor style, but I prefer avoiding ternaries if possible. This is
> much
> easier to read for me:
>
> if (req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED)
> return IOU_STOP_MULTISHOT;
> return ret;
OK
>
> > @@ -505,6 +549,7 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int
> > issue_flags)
> > unsigned flags;
> > int ret, min_ret = 0;
> > bool force_nonblock = issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK;
> > + size_t len = sr->len;
> >
> > if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED) &&
> > (sr->flags & IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST))
> > @@ -514,16 +559,17 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned
> > int issue_flags)
> > if (unlikely(!sock))
> > return -ENOTSOCK;
> >
> > +retry_multishot:
> > if (io_do_buffer_select(req)) {
> > void __user *buf;
> >
> > - buf = io_buffer_select(req, &sr->len, issue_flags);
> > + buf = io_buffer_select(req, &len, issue_flags);
> > if (!buf)
> > return -ENOBUFS;
> > sr->buf = buf;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = import_single_range(READ, sr->buf, sr->len, &iov,
> > &msg.msg_iter);
> > + ret = import_single_range(READ, sr->buf, len, &iov,
> > &msg.msg_iter);
> > if (unlikely(ret))
> > goto out_free;
> >
> > @@ -543,8 +589,14 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int
> > issue_flags)
> >
> > ret = sock_recvmsg(sock, &msg, flags);
> > if (ret < min_ret) {
> > - if (ret == -EAGAIN && force_nonblock)
> > - return -EAGAIN;
> > + if (ret == -EAGAIN && force_nonblock) {
> > + if ((req->flags & IO_APOLL_MULTI_POLLED) ==
> > IO_APOLL_MULTI_POLLED) {
> > + io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
> > + ret = IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> Maybe:
> if ((req->flags & IO_APOLL_MULTI_POLLED) ==
> IO_APOLL_MULTI_POLLED) {
> io_kbuf_recycle(req, issue_flags);
> return IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE;
> }
>
> return ret;
>
> > @@ -570,8 +622,25 @@ int io_recv(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int
> > issue_flags)
> > cflags = io_put_kbuf(req, issue_flags);
> > if (msg.msg_inq)
> > cflags |= IORING_CQE_F_SOCK_NONEMPTY;
> > +
> > +
> > + if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT)) {
> > + io_req_set_res(req, ret, cflags);
> > + return IOU_OK;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ret > 0) {
> > + if (io_post_aux_cqe(req->ctx, req->cqe.user_data,
> > ret,
> > + cflags | IORING_CQE_F_MORE)) {
> > + io_recv_prep_retry(req);
> > + goto retry_multishot;
> > + } else {
> > + ret = -ECANCELED;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > io_req_set_res(req, ret, cflags);
> > - return IOU_OK;
> > + return req->flags & REQ_F_POLLED ? IOU_STOP_MULTISHOT :
> > ret;
> > }
>
> Same here, and maybe this needs to be a helper so you could just do
>
> return io_recv_finish(req, ret, cflags);
>
> or something like that? It's non-trivial duplicated code.
>
Makes sense - I'll do that
Powered by blists - more mailing lists