On 12/06/2020 22:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/12/20 12:33 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 12/06/2020 21:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/12/20 11:55 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yeah, I was even thinking to drag it through task_work just to call
>> *grab_env() there. Looks reasonable to me.
>>
>>> Something like this, totally untested. And wants a comment too.
>>
>> Looks like it. Would you leave this to me? There is another issue with
>> cancellation requiring ->task, It'd be easier to keep them together.
>
> Guess this ties into the next email, on using task_work? I actually
> don't think that's a bad idea. If you have a low(er) queue depth device,
> the -EAGAIN path is not necessarily that common. And task_work is a lot
> more efficient for re-submittal than async work, plus needs to grab less
> resources.
>
> So I think you should still run with it...
Ok, I'll look into this then
--
Pavel Begunkov
