From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Memory keys and io_uring.
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 08:37:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0ec1943b-4004-66bd-5a8f-2daf86de3349@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ed6cbf6-b850-dac5-88c6-03e58dfc6631@linux.ibm.com>
On 2/12/21 8:33 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On 2/12/21 8:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/11/21 11:59 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am trying to estabilish the behaviour we should expect when passing a
>>> buffer with memory keys attached to io_uring syscalls. As show in the
>>> blow test
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * gcc -Wall -O2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -o pkey_uring pkey_uring.c -luring
>>> */
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>> #include <fcntl.h>
>>> #include <string.h>
>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>> #include <unistd.h>
>>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>>> #include "liburing.h"
>>>
>>> #define PAGE_SIZE (64 << 10)
>>>
>>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>> {
>>> int fd, ret, pkey;
>>> struct io_uring ring;
>>> struct io_uring_sqe *sqe;
>>> struct io_uring_cqe *cqe;
>>> struct iovec iovec;
>>> void *buf;
>>>
>>> if (argc < 2) {
>>> printf("%s: file\n", argv[0]);
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> ret = io_uring_queue_init(1, &ring, IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL);
>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>> fprintf(stderr, "queue_init: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY | O_DIRECT);
>>> if (fd < 0) {
>>> perror("open");
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (posix_memalign(&buf, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE))
>>> return 1;
>>> iovec.iov_base = buf;
>>> iovec.iov_len = PAGE_SIZE;
>>>
>>> //mprotect(buf, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE);
>>> pkey = pkey_alloc(0, PKEY_DISABLE_WRITE);
>>> pkey_mprotect(buf, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, pkey);
>>>
>>>
>>> sqe = io_uring_get_sqe(&ring);
>>> if (!sqe) {
>>> perror("io_uring_get_sqe");
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>> io_uring_prep_readv(sqe, fd, &iovec, 1, 0);
>>>
>>> ret = io_uring_submit(&ring);
>>> if (ret != 1) {
>>> fprintf(stderr, "io_uring_submit: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> ret = io_uring_wait_cqe(&ring, &cqe);
>>>
>>> if (cqe->res < 0)
>>> fprintf(stderr, "iouring submit failed %s\n", strerror(-cqe->res));
>>> else
>>> fprintf(stderr, "iouring submit success\n");
>>>
>>> io_uring_cqe_seen(&ring, cqe);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * let's access this via a read syscall
>>> */
>>> ret = read(fd, buf, PAGE_SIZE);
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> fprintf(stderr, "read failed : %s\n", strerror(errno));
>>>
>>> close(fd);
>>> io_uring_queue_exit(&ring);
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> A read syscall do fail with EFAULT. But we allow read via io_uring
>>> syscalls. Is that ok? Considering memory keys are thread-specific we
>>> could debate that kernel thread can be considered to be the one that got all access
>>> allowed via keys or we could update that access is denied via kernel
>>> thread for any key value other than default key (key 0). Other option
>>> is to inherit the memory key restrictions when doing
>>> io_uring_submit() and use the same when accessing the userspace from
>>> kernel thread.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts here with respect to what should be behaviour?
>>
>> It this a powerpc thing? I get -EFAULT on x86 for both reads, io_uring
>> and regular syscall. That includes SQPOLL, not using SQPOLL, or
>> explicitly setting IOSQE_ASYNC on the sqe.
>>
>
> Interesting, I didn't check x86 because i don't have hardware that
> supports memory keys. I am trying to make ppc64 behavior compatible with
> other archs here.
>
> IIUC, in your test io_wqe/sqe kernel thread did hit access fault when
> touching the buffer on x86? That is different from what Dave explained
> earlier.
Yes, all four methods (task inline, task_work, SQPOLL, io-wq offload)
return -EFAULT for me on x86.
> With the patch 8c511eff1827 ("powerpc/kuap: Allow kernel thread to
> access userspace after kthread_use_mm") I now have key 0 access allowed
> but all other keys denied with ppc64. I was planning to change that to
> allow all key access based on reply from Dave. I would be curious to
> understand what made x86 deny the access and how did kthread inherit the
> key details.
I'm not very familiar with the memory protection for pkeys and how it's
done on various archs, so not going to be of much help there... But
io_uring assumes the right mm for any of these accesses, so if it's tied
to that, then it should work as it does on x86.
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-12 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-12 6:59 Memory keys and io_uring Aneesh Kumar K.V
2021-02-12 7:30 ` Dave Hansen
2021-02-12 15:15 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-12 15:33 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2021-02-12 15:37 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0ec1943b-4004-66bd-5a8f-2daf86de3349@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.