From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f178.google.com (mail-pf1-f178.google.com [209.85.210.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22618199B4 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710607371; cv=none; b=rvOLdpTUZS6Cu9vuWOZ4FupLBu6PD8XPp27hJidcplr1ZLy/H946oaVwtDPRH9DGSkJjOu1V98uGhA6Yiq5gz3gL7REIQxO+b+m+MQMI00gvUqr3F18amBNtd1J/4QfBt9zC9O418W9ocPPTTfna/Z9wTlEDP1RgiS9VE4B9ags= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710607371; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vcWbxtX7ui2C9QEnUw1/cxiKxCJ8j2CdE8KkGn5X+l0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=cRQ79HHcZD9dcDiLbw1oGuzWA44YgWrzzsZoWhqvFhdPctgKnEjL+YsaJKEU8oVsxEVRoYU3o5hHz8r9K32PVe+UFs1p+K/QyCkZ9hBmWZYPFweh8Hhqsag6P4x/LMusgu6nwifrb0GXlOp5GKC+7OsSaoZmczNiPoMYUNgbeSk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=k21U10q3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="k21U10q3" Received: by mail-pf1-f178.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6e6ca65edc9so879903b3a.0 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1710607368; x=1711212168; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UGO5SyLY7hLJWc+mxaKiGt1WQXjxH1NVSomM7vXW0E4=; b=k21U10q3dLkZmyQCSK7uN0SBu8BhhO7bw80EQAybFpic6vZJsCzL+h8gBYeOwQmILg /VuqRrV/pPwIk994LMgW68h+vHskuENolsLldzcM2ayhrWmR+2u62sAsNz1UBofkD5mY EEvVLu+l7DoVQP1whTtl9ZOYDMkoRsU74s+lTTx6TmPi+8iwz0a5Jiyp7JKwiXfcwdRe E2um/IaT4+uucVKoHSXe9OGEnKPzX37/wYnuIybByOgtDB4oQz4PxaPtPuDOj9/OSZRk cGqWjDWC+cJDAM7DeNgHhzzbleM42Zx1PYt3UsXjXYMPYrC/cVaj3eJAHt8HKC58ZK4e 2G6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710607368; x=1711212168; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UGO5SyLY7hLJWc+mxaKiGt1WQXjxH1NVSomM7vXW0E4=; b=MffSZF96oKGpmU57jZ3G0T4t1PH/ywTdTzox5IkemlTeRE3s9TfKtaeHljAk8Y5ML6 kPYpisf+UXKMqDSsXltj4nr8KvSMm4VgVOXRpZEmgYg7C7yr+yGncXV5deA6sXUswASz PoxC1tt9vWMWeVcPtXSUBpNNzEaiB7TV+KSNh3xUtEG1WeJBD5+QnVMwFCKNx5SXrCyJ L/n5zlsuyYyAVHb112UiLqqwRi43AsDHL3EYaoW4Ebstf6FGmbxvLNuSSzjgRJ6Z0tCy Dqnii4nYVH45XpwErRW9YHuRxHyJ8epki4eO8/nhcjUrQKKSMg2dS74taor5wIM0h00D 9v7g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVozzJNR+2LKn+q4cTSvRlfMRVhZyzn6nDPdtrCdSQxffVmhzbxsseQJHGOi7YNVUuJ0dEImqNxbKTZIhf4dpu06K+naCPi7FU= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyRRX/HAiU9kkw9gA8O38vJhjzmgsI/CZUJYScBOCdpJ1yXpeWt IHekUax6GbraKcANq+Kay7Bq+kUb2045xlYQ/9roGFqCG1pf8AIUJ7MBtIUUE591Ac9CimXU+Wu P X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFcpmuKjmYwyl/gmfe/yYVDukCwIzCGl0Dw7j3E8WD1JsjZBJXPCDL0HDFLUZ76bvGXnLffCg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:3381:b0:1a3:5c74:62ae with SMTP id yy1-20020a056a21338100b001a35c7462aemr1185966pzb.1.1710607368332; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.150] ([198.8.77.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lb15-20020a056a004f0f00b006e6b9dd81bdsm5333768pfb.99.2024.03.16.09.42.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0f3bc43a-7533-40b2-b9c8-615abf4f81c1@kernel.dk> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:42:46 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring/net: ensure async prep handlers always initialize ->done_io Content-Language: en-US To: Pavel Begunkov , io-uring References: <472ec1d4-f928-4a52-8a93-7ccc1af4f362@kernel.dk> <0ec91000-43f8-477e-9b61-f0a2f531e7d5@gmail.com> <2af3dfa2-a91c-4cae-8c4c-9599459202e2@gmail.com> <083d800c-34b0-4947-b6d1-b477f147e129@kernel.dk> <1e595d4b-6688-4193-9bf7-448590a77cdc@kernel.dk> <6affbea3-c723-4080-b55d-49a4fbedce70@gmail.com> <0224b8e1-9692-4682-8b15-16a1d422c8b2@kernel.dk> <30535d27-7979-4aa9-b8f7-e35eb51dedb0@gmail.com> From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: <30535d27-7979-4aa9-b8f7-e35eb51dedb0@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 3/16/24 10:36 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 3/16/24 16:36, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 3/16/24 10:32 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 3/16/24 16:31, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 3/16/24 10:28 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> On 3/16/24 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 3/15/24 5:28 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/15/24 23:25, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 5:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 23:13, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 23:09, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 22:48, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If we get a request with IOSQE_ASYNC set, then we first run the prep >>>>>>>>>>>> async handlers. But if we then fail setting it up and want to post >>>>>>>>>>>> a CQE with -EINVAL, we use ->done_io. This was previously guarded with >>>>>>>>>>>> REQ_F_PARTIAL_IO, and the normal setup handlers do set it up before any >>>>>>>>>>>> potential errors, but we need to cover the async setup too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can hit io_req_defer_failed() { opdef->fail(); } >>>>>>>>>>> off of an early submission failure path where def->prep has >>>>>>>>>>> not yet been called, I don't think the patch will fix the >>>>>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ->fail() handlers are fragile, maybe we should skip them >>>>>>>>>>> if def->prep() wasn't called. Not even compile tested: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 846d67a9c72e..56eed1490571 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>> def->fail(req); >>>>>>>>>>> io_req_complete_defer(req); >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2201,8 +2201,7 @@ static int io_init_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_kiocb *req, >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> req->flags |= REQ_F_CREDS; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>> - return def->prep(req, sqe); >>>>>>>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> static __cold int io_submit_fail_init(const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe, >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2250,8 +2249,15 @@ static inline int io_submit_sqe(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_kiocb *req, >>>>>>>>>>> int ret; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ret = io_init_req(ctx, req, sqe); >>>>>>>>>>> - if (unlikely(ret)) >>>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(ret)) { >>>>>>>>>>> +fail: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obvious the diff is crap, but still bugging me enough to write >>>>>>>>> that the label should've been one line below, otherwise we'd >>>>>>>>> flag after ->prep as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It certainly needs testing :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can go either way - patch up the net thing, or do a proper EARLY_FAIL >>>>>>>> and hopefully not have to worry about it again. Do you want to clean it >>>>>>>> up, test it, and send it out? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd rather leave it to you, I suspect it wouldn't fix the syzbot >>>>>>> report w/o fiddling with done_io as in your patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> I gave this a shot, but some fail handlers do want to get called. But >>>>> >>>>> Which one and/or which part of it? >>>> >>>> send zc >>> >>> I don't think so. If prep wasn't called there wouldn't be >>> a notif allocated, and so no F_MORE required. If you take >>> at the code path it's under REQ_F_NEED_CLEANUP, which is only >>> set by opcode handlers >> >> I'm not making this up, your test case will literally fail as it doesn't >> get to flag MORE for that case. FWIW, this was done with EARLY_FAIL >> being flagged, and failing if we fail during or before prep. > > Maybe the test is too strict, but your approach is different > from what I mentioned yesterday > > - return def->prep(req, sqe); > + ret = def->prep(req, sqe); > + if (unlikely(ret)) { > + req->flags |= REQ_F_EARLY_FAIL; > + return ret; > + } > + > + return 0; > > It should only set REQ_F_EARLY_FAIL if we fail > _before_ prep is called I did try both ways, fails if we just have: return def->prep(req, sqe); fail: req->flags |= REQ_F_EARLY_FAIL; ... as well. -- Jens Axboe