On 6/12/20 11:30 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 12/06/2020 20:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/11/20 9:54 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> io_do_iopoll() can async punt a request with io_queue_async_work(),
>>> so doing io_req_work_grab_env(). The problem is that iopoll() can
>>> be called from who knows what context, e.g. from a completely
>>> different process with its own memory space, creds, etc.
>>>
>>> io_do_iopoll() {
>>> ret = req->poll();
>>> if (ret == -EAGAIN)
>>> io_queue_async_work()
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't find it handled in io_uring. Can this even happen?
>>> Wouldn't it be better to complete them with -EAGAIN?
>>
>> I don't think a plain -EAGAIN complete would be very useful, it's kind
>> of a shitty thing to pass back to userspace when it can be avoided. For
>> polled IO, we know we're doing O_DIRECT, or using fixed buffers. For the
>> latter, there's no problem in retrying, regardless of context. For the
>> former, I think we'd get -EFAULT mapping the IO at that point, which is
>> probably reasonable. I'd need to double check, though.
>
> It's shitty, but -EFAULT is the best outcome. I care more about not
> corrupting another process' memory if addresses coincide. AFAIK it can
> happen because io_{read,write} will use iovecs for punted re-submission.
>
>
> Unconditional in advance async_prep() is too heavy to be good. I'd love to
> see something more clever, but with -EAGAIN users at least can handle it.
So how about we just grab ->task for the initial issue, and retry if we
find it through -EAGAIN and ->task == current. That'll be the most
common case, by far, and it'll prevent passes back -EAGAIN when we
really don't have to. If the task is different, then -EAGAIN makes more
sense, because at that point we're passing back -EAGAIN because we
really cannot feasibly handle it rather than just as a convenience.
--
Jens Axboe
