Message-ID: <CAG48ez2p+zB+c+TpDgGBhdk9CAKHCiFKTn9HYmcwv4gGnzUFmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 22:53:36 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, 
	io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bcachefs: suspicious mm pointer in struct dio_write

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:52 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:16?PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> > > On 11/27/24 2:08 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 09:44:21PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 9:25?PM Kent Overstreet
> > > >> <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:09:14AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>>> On 11/27/24 9:57 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> In fs/bcachefs/fs-io-direct.c, "struct dio_write" contains a pointer
> > > >>>>> to an mm_struct. This pointer is grabbed in bch2_direct_write()
> > > >>>>> (without any kind of refcount increment), and used in
> > > >>>>> bch2_dio_write_continue() for kthread_use_mm()/kthread_unuse_mm()
> > > >>>>> which are used to enable userspace memory access from kthread context.
> > > >>>>> I believe kthread_use_mm()/kthread_unuse_mm() require that the caller
> > > >>>>> guarantees that the MM hasn't gone through exit_mmap() yet (normally
> > > >>>>> by holding an mmget() reference).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If we reach this codepath via io_uring, do we have a guarantee that
> > > >>>>> the mm_struct that called bch2_direct_write() is still alive and
> > > >>>>> hasn't yet gone through exit_mmap() when it is accessed from
> > > >>>>> bch2_dio_write_continue()?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I don't know the async direct I/O codepath particularly well, so I
> > > >>>>> cc'ed the uring maintainers, who probably know this better than me.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I _think_ this is fine as-is, even if it does look dubious and bcachefs
> > > >>>> arguably should grab an mm ref for this just for safety to avoid future
> > > >>>> problems. The reason is that bcachefs doesn't set FMODE_NOWAIT, which
> > > >>>> means that on the io_uring side it cannot do non-blocking issue of
> > > >>>> requests. This is slower as it always punts to an io-wq thread, which
> > > >>>> shares the same mm. Hence if the request is alive, there's always a
> > > >>>> thread with the same mm alive as well.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now if FMODE_NOWAIT was set, then the original task could exit. I'd need
> > > >>>> to dig a bit deeper to verify that would always be safe and there's not
> > > >>>> a of time today with a few days off in the US looming, so I'll defer
> > > >>>> that to next week. It certainly would be fine with an mm ref grabbed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Wouldn't delivery of completions be tied to an address space (not a
> > > >>> process) like it is for aio?
> > > >>
> > > >> An io_uring instance is primarily exposed to userspace as a file
> > > >> descriptor, so AFAIK it is possible for the io_uring instance to live
> > > >> beyond when the last mmput() happens. io_uring initially only holds an
> > > >> mmgrab() reference on the MM (a comment above that explains: "This is
> > > >> just grabbed for accounting purposes"), which I think is not enough to
> > > >> make it stable enough for kthread_use_mm(); I think in io_uring, only
> > > >> the worker threads actually keep the MM fully alive (and AFAIK the
> > > >> uring worker threads can exit before the uring instance itself is torn
> > > >> down).
> > > >>
> > > >> To receive io_uring completions, there are multiple ways, but they
> > > >> don't use a pointer from the io_uring instance to the MM to access
> > > >> userspace memory. Instead, you can have a VMA that points to the
> > > >> io_uring instance, created by calling mmap() on the io_uring fd; or
> > > >> alternatively, with IORING_SETUP_NO_MMAP, you can have io_uring grab
> > > >> references to userspace-provided pages.
> > > >>
> > > >> On top of that, I think it might currently be possible to use the
> > > >> io_uring file descriptor from another task to submit work. (That would
> > > >> probably be fairly nonsensical, but I think the kernel does not
> > > >> currently prevent it.)
> > > >
> > > > Ok, that's a wrinkle.
> > >
> > > I'd argue the fact that you are using an mm from a different process
> > > without grabbing a reference is the wrinkle. I just don't think it's a
> > > problem right now, but it could be... aio is tied to the mm because of
> > > how it does completions, potentially, and hence needs this exit_aio()
> > > hack because of that. aio also doesn't care, because it doesn't care
> > > about blocking - it'll happily block during issue.
> > >
> > > > Jens, is it really FMODE_NOWAIT that controls whether we can hit this? A
> > > > very cursory glance leads me to suspect "no", it seems like this is a
> > > > bug if io_uring is allowed on bcachefs at all.
> > >
> > > I just looked at bcachefs dio writes, which look to be the only case of
> > > this. And yes, for writes, if FMODE_NOWAIT isn't set, then io-wq is
> > > always involved for the IO.
> >
> > I guess it could be an issue if the iocb can outlive the io-wq thread?
> > Like, a userspace task creates a uring instance and starts a write;
> > the write will be punted to a uring worker because of missing
> > FMODE_NOWAIT; then the uring worker enters io_write() and starts a
> > write on a kiocb. Can this write initiated from the worker be async?
> > And could the uring worker exit (for example, because the userspace
> > task exited) while the kiocb is still in flight?
>
> No, any write (or read, whatever) from an io-wq worker is always
> blocking / sync. That's the main reason for them existing, to be able to
> do blocking issue. And that's what they always do.

Aaah, ok, thanks for the explanation.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists