linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] io_uring: Add new functions to handle user fault scenarios

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ec65451-d183-453e-a873-97b4abb4f884@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 10:23:12 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, 姜智伟
 <qq282012236@...il.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterx@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] io_uring: Add new functions to handle user fault
 scenarios

On 4/23/25 10:17 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 4/23/25 16:55, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Something like this, perhaps - it'll ensure that io-wq workers get a
>> chance to flush out pending work, which should prevent the looping. I've
>> attached a basic test case. It'll issue a write that will fault, and
>> then try and cancel that as a way to trigger the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL based
>> looping.
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
>> index d80f94346199..e18926dbf20a 100644
>> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
>> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/swapops.h>
>>   #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
>>   #include <linux/uio.h>
>> +#include <linux/io_uring.h>
>>     static int sysctl_unprivileged_userfaultfd __read_mostly;
>>   @@ -376,6 +377,8 @@ vm_fault_t handle_userfault(struct vm_fault *vmf, unsigned long reason)
>>        */
>>       if (current->flags & (PF_EXITING|PF_DUMPCORE))
>>           goto out;
>> +    else if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)
>> +        io_worker_fault();
>>         assert_fault_locked(vmf);
>>   diff --git a/include/linux/io_uring.h b/include/linux/io_uring.h
>> index 85fe4e6b275c..d93dd7402a28 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/io_uring.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/io_uring.h
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ static inline void io_uring_free(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>       if (tsk->io_uring)
>>           __io_uring_free(tsk);
>>   }
>> +void io_worker_fault(void);
>>   #else
>>   static inline void io_uring_task_cancel(void)
>>   {
>> @@ -46,6 +47,9 @@ static inline bool io_is_uring_fops(struct file *file)
>>   {
>>       return false;
>>   }
>> +static inline void io_worker_fault(void)
>> +{
>> +}
>>   #endif
>>     #endif
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.c b/io_uring/io-wq.c
>> index d52069b1177b..f74bea028ec7 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/io-wq.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/io-wq.c
>> @@ -1438,3 +1438,13 @@ static __init int io_wq_init(void)
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>>   subsys_initcall(io_wq_init);
>> +
>> +void io_worker_fault(void)
>> +{
>> +    if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL))
>> +        clear_notify_signal();
>> +    if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME))
>> +        resume_user_mode_work(NULL);
>> +    if (task_work_pending(current))
>> +        task_work_run();
> 
> Looking at the stacktrace, that sounds dangerous
> 
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_wq_worker
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_worker_handle_work
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_wq_submit_work
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_issue_sqe
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] io_write
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] blkdev_write_iter
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] iomap_file_buffered_write
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] iomap_write_iter
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] fault_in_iov_iter_readable
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] fault_in_readable
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] asm_exc_page_fault
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] exc_page_fault
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_user_addr_fault
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] handle_mm_fault
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] hugetlb_fault
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] hugetlb_no_page
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] hugetlb_handle_userfault
> iou-wrk-44588  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] handle_userfault
> 
> It might be holding a good bunch of locks, and then it's trapped
> in a page fault handler. Do normal / non-PF_IO_WORKER tasks run
> task_work from handle_userfault?

Yeah, it's really just a test patch. Ideally we want this to do the
usual thing, which is fall back and let it retry, where we can handle
all of this too.

-- 
Jens Axboe