On 11/20/19 7:03 AM, Bob Liu wrote: > On 11/20/19 7:07 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 11/20/2019 1:22 PM, Bob Liu wrote: >>> On 11/20/19 4:44 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 11/20/2019 1:33 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> We currently clear the linked timeout field if we cancel such a timeout, >>>>> but we should only attempt to cancel if it's the first one we see. >>>>> Others should simply be freed like other requests, as they haven't >>>>> been started yet. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c >>>>> index a79ef43367b1..d1085e4e8ae9 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c >>>>> @@ -937,12 +937,12 @@ static void io_fail_links(struct io_kiocb *req) >>>>> if ((req->flags & REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT) && >>>>> link->submit.sqe->opcode == IORING_OP_LINK_TIMEOUT) { >>>>> io_link_cancel_timeout(link); >>>>> - req->flags &= ~REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT; >>>>> } else { >>>>> io_cqring_fill_event(link, -ECANCELED); >>>>> __io_double_put_req(link); >>>>> } >>>>> kfree(sqe_to_free); >>>>> + req->flags &= ~REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT; >>>> >>>> That's not necessary, but maybe would safer to keep. If >>>> REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT is set, than there was a link timeout request, >>>> and for it and only for it io_link_cancel_timeout() will be called. >>>> >>>> However, this is only true if linked timeout isn't fired. Otherwise, >>>> there is another bug, which isn't fixed by either of the patches. We >>>> need to clear REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT in io_link_timeout_fn() as well. >>>> >>>> Let: REQ -> L_TIMEOUT1 -> L_TIMEOUT2 >>>> 1. L_TIMEOUT1 fired before REQ is completed >>>> >>>> 2. io_link_timeout_fn() removes L_TIMEOUT1 from the list: >>>> REQ|REQ_F_LINK_TIMEOUT -> L_TIMEOUT2 >>>> >>>> 3. free_req(REQ) then call io_link_cancel_timeout(L_TIMEOUT2) >>>> leaking it (as described in my patch). >>>> >>>> P.S. haven't tried to test nor reproduce it yet. >>>> >>> >>> Off topic... I'm reading the code regarding IORING_OP_LINK_TIMEOUT. >>> But confused by what's going to happen if userspace submit a request with IORING_OP_LINK_TIMEOUT but not IOSQE_IO_LINK. >>> >> It fails in __io_submit_sqe() with -EINVAL. (see default branch in the >> switch). As for me, it's better to do it late, as it will generically >> handle dependant links (e.g. fail them properly). >> > > I see, thanks. > As for me, it may better return -EINVAL in advance so as to skip a lot > unnecessary code for those reqs. It's an error case, hence unnecessary code isn't an issue. It's much more important to just let it unwind naturally for that, imho. -- Jens Axboe