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: <a5bf4d77-0fad-1d3f-159f-b97128f58af2@samba.org> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:45:48 +0200 From: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org> To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Dylan Yudaken <dylany@...com> Subject: Re: IORING_SEND_NOTIF_USER_DATA (was Re: IORING_CQE_F_COPIED) Am 21.10.22 um 11:27 schrieb Pavel Begunkov: > On 10/21/22 09:32, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: >> Hi Pavel, >> >>>>>> Experimenting with this stuff lets me wish to have a way to >>>>>> have a different 'user_data' field for the notif cqe, >>>>>> maybe based on a IORING_RECVSEND_ flag, it may make my life >>>>>> easier and would avoid some complexity in userspace... >>>>>> As I need to handle retry on short writes even with MSG_WAITALL >>>>>> as EINTR and other errors could cause them. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Any comment on this? >>>> >>>> IORING_SEND_NOTIF_USER_DATA could let us use >>>> notif->cqe.user_data = sqe->addr3; >>> >>> I'd rather not use the last available u64, tbh, that was the >>> reason for not adding a second user_data in the first place. >> >> As far as I can see io_send_zc_prep has this: >> >> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sqe->__pad2[0]) || READ_ONCE(sqe->addr3))) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> both are u64... > > Hah, true, completely forgot about that one So would a commit like below be fine for you? Do you have anything in mind for SEND[MSG]_ZC that could possibly use another u64 in future? metze diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h index 738d6234d1d9..7a6272872334 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h @@ -300,6 +300,7 @@ enum io_uring_op { #define IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST (1U << 0) #define IORING_RECV_MULTISHOT (1U << 1) #define IORING_RECVSEND_FIXED_BUF (1U << 2) +#define IORING_SEND_NOTIF_USER_DATA (1U << 3) /* * accept flags stored in sqe->ioprio diff --git a/io_uring/net.c b/io_uring/net.c index 735eec545115..e1bc06b58cd7 100644 --- a/io_uring/net.c +++ b/io_uring/net.c @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ int io_send_zc_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe) struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; struct io_kiocb *notif; - if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sqe->__pad2[0]) || READ_ONCE(sqe->addr3))) + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sqe->__pad2[0])) return -EINVAL; /* we don't support IOSQE_CQE_SKIP_SUCCESS just yet */ if (req->flags & REQ_F_CQE_SKIP) @@ -946,12 +946,19 @@ int io_send_zc_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe) zc->flags = READ_ONCE(sqe->ioprio); if (zc->flags & ~(IORING_RECVSEND_POLL_FIRST | - IORING_RECVSEND_FIXED_BUF)) + IORING_RECVSEND_FIXED_BUF | + IORING_SEND_NOTIF_USER_DATA)) return -EINVAL; notif = zc->notif = io_alloc_notif(ctx); if (!notif) return -ENOMEM; - notif->cqe.user_data = req->cqe.user_data; + if (zc->flags & IORING_SEND_NOTIF_USER_DATA) + notif->cqe.user_data = READ_ONCE(sqe->addr3); + else { + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sqe->addr3))) + return -EINVAL; + notif->cqe.user_data = req->cqe.user_data; + } notif->cqe.res = 0; notif->cqe.flags = IORING_CQE_F_NOTIF; req->flags |= REQ_F_NEED_CLEANUP;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists