netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: Pass whole sqe to commands

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:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:12:10 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, davem@...emloft.net, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
        dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        kuba@...nel.org, leit@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        marcelo.leitner@...il.com, matthieu.baerts@...sares.net,
        mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: Pass whole sqe to commands

On 4/14/23 03:12, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 09:47:56AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> Hello Ming,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:56:49AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:57:05AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
>>>> Currently uring CMD operation relies on having large SQEs, but future
>>>> operations might want to use normal SQE.
>>>>
>>>> The io_uring_cmd currently only saves the payload (cmd) part of the SQE,
>>>> but, for commands that use normal SQE size, it might be necessary to
>>>> access the initial SQE fields outside of the payload/cmd block.  So,
>>>> saves the whole SQE other than just the pdu.
>>>>
>>>> This changes slighlty how the io_uring_cmd works, since the cmd
>>>> structures and callbacks are not opaque to io_uring anymore. I.e, the
>>>> callbacks can look at the SQE entries, not only, in the cmd structure.
>>>>
>>>> The main advantage is that we don't need to create custom structures for
>>>> simple commands.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> index 2e4c483075d3..9648134ccae1 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
>>>> @@ -63,14 +63,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_uring_cmd_done);
>>>>   int io_uring_cmd_prep_async(struct io_kiocb *req)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_uring_cmd);
>>>> -	size_t cmd_size;
>>>> +	size_t size = sizeof(struct io_uring_sqe);
>>>>   
>>>>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(uring_cmd_pdu_size(0) != 16);
>>>>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(uring_cmd_pdu_size(1) != 80);
>>>>   
>>>> -	cmd_size = uring_cmd_pdu_size(req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQE128);
>>>> +	if (req->ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQE128)
>>>> +		size <<= 1;
>>>>   
>>>> -	memcpy(req->async_data, ioucmd->cmd, cmd_size);
>>>> +	memcpy(req->async_data, ioucmd->sqe, size);
>>>
>>> The copy will make some fields of sqe become READ TWICE, and driver may see
>>> different sqe field value compared with the one observed in io_init_req().
>>
>> This copy only happens if the operation goes to the async path
>> (calling io_uring_cmd_prep_async()).  This only happens if
>> f_op->uring_cmd() returns -EAGAIN.
>>
>>            ret = file->f_op->uring_cmd(ioucmd, issue_flags);
>>            if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
>>                    if (!req_has_async_data(req)) {
>>                            if (io_alloc_async_data(req))
>>                                    return -ENOMEM;
>>                            io_uring_cmd_prep_async(req);
>>                    }
>>                    return -EAGAIN;
>>            }
>>
>> Are you saying that after this copy, the operation is still reading from
>> sqe instead of req->async_data?
> 
> I meant that the 2nd read is on the sqe copy(req->aync_data), but same
> fields can become different between the two READs(first is done on original
> SQE during io_init_req(), and second is done on sqe copy in driver).
> 
> Will this kind of inconsistency cause trouble for driver? Cause READ
> TWICE becomes possible with this patch.

Right it might happen, and I was keeping that in mind, but it's not
specific to this patch. It won't reload core io_uring bits, and all
fields cmds use already have this problem.

Unless there is a better option, the direction we'll be moving in is
adding a preparation step that should read and stash parts of SQE
it cares about, which should also make full SQE copy not
needed / optional.

>> If you have an example of the two copes flow, that would be great.
> 
> Not any example yet, but also not see any access on cmd->sqe(except for cmd_op)
> in your patches too.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov