* FAILED: patch "[PATCH] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree
@ 2025-09-21 12:32 gregkh
2025-09-21 12:45 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: gregkh @ 2025-09-21 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: axboe, thaler; +Cc: stable
The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 3539b1467e94336d5854ebf976d9627bfb65d6c3
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025092127-emit-dean-5272@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 3539b1467e94336d5854ebf976d9627bfb65d6c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:21:14 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"
state
When running task_work for an exiting task, rather than perform the
issue retry attempt, the task_work is canceled. However, this isn't
done for a ring that has been closed. This can lead to requests being
successfully completed post the ring being closed, which is somewhat
confusing and surprising to an application.
Rather than just check the task exit state, also include the ring
ref state in deciding whether or not to terminate a given request when
run from task_work.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.1+
Link: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/discussions/1459
Reported-by: Benedek Thaler <thaler@thaler.hu>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 93633613a165..bcec12256f34 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -1406,8 +1406,10 @@ static void io_req_task_cancel(struct io_kiocb *req, io_tw_token_t tw)
void io_req_task_submit(struct io_kiocb *req, io_tw_token_t tw)
{
- io_tw_lock(req->ctx, tw);
- if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw()))
+ struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
+
+ io_tw_lock(ctx, tw);
+ if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw(ctx)))
io_req_defer_failed(req, -EFAULT);
else if (req->flags & REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC)
io_queue_iowq(req);
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h
index abc6de227f74..1880902be6fd 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.h
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h
@@ -476,9 +476,9 @@ static inline bool io_allowed_run_tw(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
* 2) PF_KTHREAD is set, in which case the invoker of the task_work is
* our fallback task_work.
*/
-static inline bool io_should_terminate_tw(void)
+static inline bool io_should_terminate_tw(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
{
- return current->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_EXITING);
+ return (current->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_EXITING)) || percpu_ref_is_dying(&ctx->refs);
}
static inline void io_req_queue_tw_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, s32 res)
diff --git a/io_uring/poll.c b/io_uring/poll.c
index c786e587563b..6090a26975d4 100644
--- a/io_uring/poll.c
+++ b/io_uring/poll.c
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static int io_poll_check_events(struct io_kiocb *req, io_tw_token_t tw)
{
int v;
- if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw()))
+ if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw(req->ctx)))
return -ECANCELED;
do {
diff --git a/io_uring/timeout.c b/io_uring/timeout.c
index 7f13bfa9f2b6..17e3aab0af36 100644
--- a/io_uring/timeout.c
+++ b/io_uring/timeout.c
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static void io_req_task_link_timeout(struct io_kiocb *req, io_tw_token_t tw)
int ret;
if (prev) {
- if (!io_should_terminate_tw()) {
+ if (!io_should_terminate_tw(req->ctx)) {
struct io_cancel_data cd = {
.ctx = req->ctx,
.data = prev->cqe.user_data,
diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
index 053bac89b6c0..213716e10d70 100644
--- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
+++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void io_uring_cmd_work(struct io_kiocb *req, io_tw_token_t tw)
struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd = io_kiocb_to_cmd(req, struct io_uring_cmd);
unsigned int flags = IO_URING_F_COMPLETE_DEFER;
- if (io_should_terminate_tw())
+ if (io_should_terminate_tw(req->ctx))
flags |= IO_URING_F_TASK_DEAD;
/* task_work executor checks the deffered list completion */
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree
2025-09-21 12:32 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree gregkh
@ 2025-09-21 12:45 ` Jens Axboe
2025-09-21 12:55 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2025-09-21 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh, thaler; +Cc: stable
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]
On 9/21/25 6:32 AM, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree.
> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
>
> To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
>
> git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y
> git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> git cherry-pick -x 3539b1467e94336d5854ebf976d9627bfb65d6c3
> # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> git commit -s
> git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025092127-emit-dean-5272@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^..
Ditto on the 6.6-stable side.
--
Jens Axboe
[-- Attachment #2: 0002-io_uring-include-dying-ring-in-task_work-should-canc.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3239 bytes --]
From 04a06705eb404dfc986171993c82d28a44c81402 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:21:14 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"
state
Commit 3539b1467e94336d5854ebf976d9627bfb65d6c3 upstream.
When running task_work for an exiting task, rather than perform the
issue retry attempt, the task_work is canceled. However, this isn't
done for a ring that has been closed. This can lead to requests being
successfully completed post the ring being closed, which is somewhat
confusing and surprising to an application.
Rather than just check the task exit state, also include the ring
ref state in deciding whether or not to terminate a given request when
run from task_work.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.1+
Link: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/discussions/1459
Reported-by: Benedek Thaler <thaler@thaler.hu>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
---
io_uring/io_uring.c | 6 ++++--
io_uring/io_uring.h | 4 ++--
io_uring/poll.c | 2 +-
io_uring/timeout.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index d18985476654..07a5824ad98d 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -1459,8 +1459,10 @@ static void io_req_task_cancel(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
void io_req_task_submit(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
{
- io_tw_lock(req->ctx, ts);
- if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw()))
+ struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
+
+ io_tw_lock(ctx, ts);
+ if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw(ctx)))
io_req_defer_failed(req, -EFAULT);
else if (req->flags & REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC)
io_queue_iowq(req);
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h
index 6123159da448..0f6b47f55c24 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.h
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h
@@ -402,9 +402,9 @@ static inline bool io_allowed_run_tw(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
* 2) PF_KTHREAD is set, in which case the invoker of the task_work is
* our fallback task_work.
*/
-static inline bool io_should_terminate_tw(void)
+static inline bool io_should_terminate_tw(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
{
- return current->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_EXITING);
+ return (current->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_EXITING)) || percpu_ref_is_dying(&ctx->refs);
}
static inline void io_req_queue_tw_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, s32 res)
diff --git a/io_uring/poll.c b/io_uring/poll.c
index 1884726dac49..b6c8acd8625e 100644
--- a/io_uring/poll.c
+++ b/io_uring/poll.c
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static int io_poll_check_events(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
{
int v;
- if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw()))
+ if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw(req->ctx)))
return -ECANCELED;
do {
diff --git a/io_uring/timeout.c b/io_uring/timeout.c
index 018c0ceaf717..be2a0f6c209b 100644
--- a/io_uring/timeout.c
+++ b/io_uring/timeout.c
@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ static void io_req_task_link_timeout(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *t
int ret = -ENOENT;
if (prev) {
- if (!io_should_terminate_tw()) {
+ if (!io_should_terminate_tw(req->ctx)) {
struct io_cancel_data cd = {
.ctx = req->ctx,
.data = prev->cqe.user_data,
--
2.51.0
[-- Attachment #3: 0001-io_uring-backport-io_should_terminate_tw.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2890 bytes --]
From a4f4390cd3ce0a339754655f8210cfe33465e3c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 11:27:06 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring: backport io_should_terminate_tw()
Parts of commit b6f58a3f4aa8dba424356c7a69388a81f4459300 upstream.
Backport io_should_terminate_tw() helper to judge whether task_work
should be run or terminated.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
---
io_uring/io_uring.c | 3 +--
io_uring/io_uring.h | 13 +++++++++++++
io_uring/poll.c | 3 +--
io_uring/timeout.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 897f07014c01..d18985476654 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -1460,8 +1460,7 @@ static void io_req_task_cancel(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
void io_req_task_submit(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
{
io_tw_lock(req->ctx, ts);
- /* req->task == current here, checking PF_EXITING is safe */
- if (unlikely(req->task->flags & PF_EXITING))
+ if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw()))
io_req_defer_failed(req, -EFAULT);
else if (req->flags & REQ_F_FORCE_ASYNC)
io_queue_iowq(req);
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h
index 59f5f71037ff..6123159da448 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.h
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h
@@ -394,6 +394,19 @@ static inline bool io_allowed_run_tw(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
ctx->submitter_task == current);
}
+/*
+ * Terminate the request if either of these conditions are true:
+ *
+ * 1) It's being executed by the original task, but that task is marked
+ * with PF_EXITING as it's exiting.
+ * 2) PF_KTHREAD is set, in which case the invoker of the task_work is
+ * our fallback task_work.
+ */
+static inline bool io_should_terminate_tw(void)
+{
+ return current->flags & (PF_KTHREAD | PF_EXITING);
+}
+
static inline void io_req_queue_tw_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, s32 res)
{
io_req_set_res(req, res, 0);
diff --git a/io_uring/poll.c b/io_uring/poll.c
index 65935ec8de89..1884726dac49 100644
--- a/io_uring/poll.c
+++ b/io_uring/poll.c
@@ -258,8 +258,7 @@ static int io_poll_check_events(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *ts)
{
int v;
- /* req->task == current here, checking PF_EXITING is safe */
- if (unlikely(req->task->flags & PF_EXITING))
+ if (unlikely(io_should_terminate_tw()))
return -ECANCELED;
do {
diff --git a/io_uring/timeout.c b/io_uring/timeout.c
index 277e22d55c61..018c0ceaf717 100644
--- a/io_uring/timeout.c
+++ b/io_uring/timeout.c
@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ static void io_req_task_link_timeout(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_tw_state *t
int ret = -ENOENT;
if (prev) {
- if (!(req->task->flags & PF_EXITING)) {
+ if (!io_should_terminate_tw()) {
struct io_cancel_data cd = {
.ctx = req->ctx,
.data = prev->cqe.user_data,
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree
2025-09-21 12:45 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2025-09-21 12:55 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2025-09-21 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: thaler, stable
On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 06:45:22AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/21/25 6:32 AM, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> > The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree.
> > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> >
> > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> >
> > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y
> > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > git cherry-pick -x 3539b1467e94336d5854ebf976d9627bfb65d6c3
> > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > git commit -s
> > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025092127-emit-dean-5272@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^..
>
> Ditto on the 6.6-stable side.
Now applied, thanks.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-09-21 12:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-09-21 12:32 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] io_uring: include dying ring in task_work "should cancel"" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree gregkh
2025-09-21 12:45 ` Jens Axboe
2025-09-21 12:55 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox