linux-kernel - Re: [io-uring] WARNING in io_fill_cqe_req

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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 13:35:50 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: chase xd <sl1589472800@...il.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [io-uring] WARNING in io_fill_cqe_req_aux

On 6/12/24 08:10, chase xd wrote:
> Sorry now I'm also a bit confused by the branch choosing. I checked
> out branch "for-6.9/io_uring" and started testing on that branch. I
> assume that was the latest version of io_uring at that time, even now
> I check out that branch and the bug still exists. How should I know
> whether the branch will be merged, and which branch do you think I
> should test on? Thanks.

# git show a69d20885494:io_uring/io_uring.c | grep -A 13 io_fill_cqe_req_aux
bool io_fill_cqe_req_aux(struct io_kiocb *req, bool defer, s32 res, u32 cflags)
{
         struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
         u64 user_data = req->cqe.user_data;

         if (!defer)
                 return __io_post_aux_cqe(ctx, user_data, res, cflags, false);

         lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->uring_lock);
         io_lockdep_assert_cq_locked(ctx);

         ctx->submit_state.flush_cqes = true;
         return io_fill_cqe_aux(ctx, user_data, res, cflags);
}

That's the buggy version from the hash you're testing, IIRC it
was in the tree for longer than necessary, presumably which is
why you found it, but it was never sent to Linus. Below is
current state of for-6.9 and what it was replaced with
respectively. Let me separately check for-6.9/io_uring if you're
concerned about it.




# git show for-6.9/io_uring:io_uring/io_uring.c | grep -A 30 io_fill_cqe_req_aux
bool io_fill_cqe_req_aux(struct io_kiocb *req, bool defer, s32 res, u32 cflags)
{
         struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
         u64 user_data = req->cqe.user_data;
         struct io_uring_cqe *cqe;

         lockdep_assert(!io_wq_current_is_worker());

         if (!defer)
                 return __io_post_aux_cqe(ctx, user_data, res, cflags, false);

         lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->uring_lock);

         if (ctx->submit_state.cqes_count == ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->completion_cqes)) {
...

# git show origin/for-6.10/io_uring:io_uring/io_uring.c | grep -A 13 io_req_post_cqe
bool io_req_post_cqe(struct io_kiocb *req, s32 res, u32 cflags)
{
         struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
         bool posted;

         lockdep_assert(!io_wq_current_is_worker());
         lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->uring_lock);

         __io_cq_lock(ctx);
         posted = io_fill_cqe_aux(ctx, req->cqe.user_data, res, cflags);
         ctx->submit_state.cq_flush = true;
         __io_cq_unlock_post(ctx);
         return posted;
}

-- 
Pavel Begunkov