netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 13/16] io_uring: add io

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]

Message-ID: <8efd8232-fd4f-4f7a-a061-2f82cda8df4b@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:03:44 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>,
 io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 13/16] io_uring: add io_recvzc request

On 3/13/24 2:26 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 3/13/24 20:25, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/12/24 3:44 PM, David Wei wrote:
>>> Add an io_uring opcode OP_RECV_ZC for doing ZC reads from a socket that
>>> is set up for ZC Rx. The request reads skbs from a socket. Completions
>>> are posted into the main CQ for each page frag read.
>>>
>>> Big CQEs (CQE32) is required as the OP_RECV_ZC specific metadata (ZC
>>> region, offset, len) are stored in the extended 16 bytes as a
>>> struct io_uring_rbuf_cqe.
>>>
>>> For now there is no limit as to how much work each OP_RECV_ZC request
>>> does. It will attempt to drain a socket of all available data.
>>>
>>> Multishot requests are also supported. The first time an io_recvzc
>>> request completes, EAGAIN is returned which arms an async poll. Then, in
>>> subsequent runs in task work, IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE is returned to
>>> continue async polling.
>>
>> I'd probably drop that last paragraph, this is how all multishot
>> requests work and is implementation detail that need not go in the
>> commit message. Probably suffices just to say it supports multishot.
>>
>>> @@ -695,7 +701,7 @@ static inline bool io_recv_finish(struct io_kiocb *req, int *ret,
>>>       unsigned int cflags;
>>>         cflags = io_put_kbuf(req, issue_flags);
>>> -    if (msg->msg_inq && msg->msg_inq != -1)
>>> +    if (msg && msg->msg_inq && msg->msg_inq != -1)
>>>           cflags |= IORING_CQE_F_SOCK_NONEMPTY;
>>>         if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_APOLL_MULTISHOT)) {
>>> @@ -723,7 +729,7 @@ static inline bool io_recv_finish(struct io_kiocb *req, int *ret,
>>>               goto enobufs;
>>>             /* Known not-empty or unknown state, retry */
>>> -        if (cflags & IORING_CQE_F_SOCK_NONEMPTY || msg->msg_inq == -1) {
>>> +        if (cflags & IORING_CQE_F_SOCK_NONEMPTY || (msg && msg->msg_inq == -1)) {
>>>               if (sr->nr_multishot_loops++ < MULTISHOT_MAX_RETRY)
>>>                   return false;
>>>               /* mshot retries exceeded, force a requeue */
>>
>> Maybe refactor this a bit so that you don't need to add these NULL
>> checks? That seems pretty fragile, hard to read, and should be doable
>> without extra checks.
> 
> That chunk can be completely thrown away, we're not using
> io_recv_finish() here anymore
> 
> 
>>> @@ -1053,6 +1058,85 @@ struct io_zc_rx_ifq *io_zc_verify_sock(struct io_kiocb *req,
>>>       return ifq;
>>>   }
>>>   +int io_recvzc_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct io_recvzc *zc = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_recvzc);
>>> +
>>> +    /* non-iopoll defer_taskrun only */
>>> +    if (!req->ctx->task_complete)
>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>
>> What's the reasoning behind this?
> 
> CQ locking, see the comment a couple lines below
> 
> 
>>> +    struct io_recvzc *zc = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_recvzc);
>>> +    struct io_zc_rx_ifq *ifq;
>>> +    struct socket *sock;
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * We're posting CQEs deeper in the stack, and to avoid taking CQ locks
>>> +     * we serialise by having only the master thread modifying the CQ with
>>> +     * DEFER_TASkRUN checked earlier and forbidding executing it from io-wq.
>>> +     * That's similar to io_check_multishot() for multishot CQEs.
>>> +     */
> 
> This one ^^, though it doesn't read well, I should reword it for
> next time.
> 
>>> +    if (issue_flags & IO_URING_F_IOWQ)
>>> +        return -EAGAIN;
>>> +    if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK)))
>>> +        return -EAGAIN;
>>
>> If rebased on the current tree, does this go away?
> 
> It's just a little behind not to have that change
> 

-- 
Jens Axboe