Re: [PATCH 3/6] io_uring: add support for IORING_OP_OPENAT

Jens Axboe
2020-01-09T21:31:12Z

On 1/9/20 3:40 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, but I'm still unsure we're talking about the same thing
>>> (or maybe I'm missing some basics here).
>>>
>>> My understanding of the io_uring_enter() is that it will execute as much
>>> non-blocking calls as it can without switching to any other kernel thread.
>>
>> Correct, any SQE that we can do without switching, we will.
>>
>>> And my fear is that openat will use get_current_cred() instead of
>>> ctx->creds.
>>
>> OK, I think I follow your concern. So you'd like to setup the rings from
>> a _different_ user, and then later on use it for submission for SQEs that
>> a specific user. So sort of the same as our initial discussion, except
>> the mapping would be static. The difference being that you might setup
>> the ring from a different user than the user that would be submitting IO
>> on it?
>
> Our current (much simplified here) flow is this:
>
> # we start as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0);setgroups()...
> ...
> # we become the user555 and
> # create our desired credential token
> seteuid(555); seteguid(555); setgroups()...
> # Start an openat2 on behalf of user555
> openat2()
> # we unbecome the user again and run as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0); setgroups()...
> ...
> # we become the user444 and
> # create our desired credential token
> seteuid(444); seteguid(444); setgroups()...
> # Start an openat2 on behalf of user444
> openat2()
> # we unbecome the user again and run as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0); setgroups()...
> ...
> # we become the user555 and
> # create our desired credential token
> seteuid(555); seteguid(555); setgroups()...
> # Start an openat2 on behalf of user555
> openat2()
> # we unbecome the user again and run as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0); setgroups()...
>
> It means we have to do about 7 syscalls in order
> to open a file on behalf of a user.
> (In reality we cache things and avoid set*id()
> calls most of the time, but I want to demonstrate the
> simplified design here)
>
> With io_uring I'd like to use a flow like this:
>
> # we start as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0);setgroups()...
> ...
> # we become the user444 and
> # create our desired credential token
> seteuid(444); seteguid(444); setgroups()...
> # we snapshot the credentials to the new ring for user444
> ring444 = io_uring_setup()
> # we unbecome the user again and run as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0);setgroups()...
> ...
> # we become the user555 and
> # create our desired credential token
> seteuid(555); seteguid(555); setgroups()...
> # we snapshot the credentials to the new ring for user555
> ring555 = io_uring_setup()
> # we unbecome the user again and run as root
> seteuid(0);setegid(0);setgroups()...
> ...
> # Start an openat2 on behalf of user555
> io_uring_enter(ring555, OP_OPENAT2...)
> ...
> # Start an openat2 on behalf of user444
> io_uring_enter(ring444, OP_OPENAT2...)
> ...
> # Start an openat2 on behalf of user555
> io_uring_enter(ring555, OP_OPENAT2...)
>
> So instead of constantly doing 7 syscalls per open,
> we would be down to just at most one. And I would assume
> that io_uring_enter() would do the temporary credential switch
> for me also in the non-blocking case.

OK, thanks for spelling the use case out, makes it easier to understand
what you need in terms of what we currently can't do.

>> If so, then we do need something to support that, probably an
>> IORING_REGISTER_CREDS or similar. This would allow you to replace the
>> creds you currently have in ctx->creds with whatever new one.
>
> I don't want to change ctx->creds, but I want it to be used consistently.
>
> What I think is missing is something like this:
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 32aee149f652..55dbb154915a 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -6359,10 +6359,27 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(io_uring_enter, unsigned int,
> fd, u32, to_submit,
> struct mm_struct *cur_mm;
>
> mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
> + if (current->mm != ctx->sqo_mm) {
> + // TODO: somthing like this...
> + restore_mm = current->mm;
> + use_mm(ctx->sqo_mm);
> + }
> /* already have mm, so io_submit_sqes() won't try to
> grab it */
> cur_mm = ctx->sqo_mm;
> + if (current_cred() != ctx->creds) {
> + // TODO: somthing like this...
> + restore_cred = override_creds(ctx->creds);
> + }
> submitted = io_submit_sqes(ctx, to_submit, f.file, fd,
> &cur_mm, false);
> + if (restore_cred != NULL) {
> + revert_creds(restore_cred);
> + }
> + if (restore_mm != NULL) {
> + // TODO: something like this...
> + unuse_mm(ctx->sqo_mm);
> + use_mm(restore_mm);
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
>
> if (submitted != to_submit)
>
> I'm not sure if current->mm is needed, I just added it for completeness
> and as hint that io_op_defs[req->opcode].needs_mm is there and a
> needs_creds could also be added (if it helps with performance)
>
> Is it possible to trigger a change of current->mm from userspace?
>
> An IORING_REGISTER_CREDS would only be useful if it's possible to
> register a set of credentials and then use per io_uring_sqe credentials.
> That would also be fine for me, but I'm not sure it's needed for now.

I think it'd be a cleaner way of doing the same thing as your patch
does. It seems a little odd to do this by default (having the ring
change personalities depending on who's using it), but from an opt-in
point of view, I think it makes more sense.

That would make the IORING_REGISTER_ call something like
IORING_REGISTER_ADOPT_OWNER or something like that, meaning that the
ring would just assume the identify of the task that's calling
io_uring_enter().

Note that this also has to be passed through to the io-wq handler, as
the mappings there are currently static as well.

--
Jens Axboe