On 3/11/21 5:44 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>
> Am 11.03.21 um 13:27 schrieb Pavel Begunkov:
>> On 11/03/2021 11:46, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>> Am 11.03.21 um 12:18 schrieb Pavel Begunkov:
>>>> On 10/03/2021 13:56, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wondered about the exact same change this morning, while researching
>>>>> the IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ behavior :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> It still seems to me that IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ changed over time.
>>>>> As you introduced that flag, can you summaries it's behavior (and changes)
>>>>> over time (over the releases).
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I remember the story in details, but from the beginning it was
>>>> for io-wq sharing only, then it had expanded to SQPOLL as well. Now it's
>>>> only about SQPOLL sharing, because of the recent io-wq changes that made
>>>> it per-task and shared by default.
>>>>
>>>> In all cases it should be checking the passed in file, that should retain
>>>> the old behaviour of failing setup if the flag is set but wq_fd is not valid.
>>>
>>> Thanks, that's what I also found so far, see below for more findings.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if ctx->sq_creds is really the only thing we need to take care of.
>>>>
>>>> io-wq is not affected by IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ. It's per-task and mimics
>>>> all the resources of the creator (on the moment of io-wq creation). Off
>>>> ATTACH_WQ topic, but that's almost matches what it has been before, and
>>>> with dropped unshare bit, should be totally same.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding SQPOLL, it was always using resources of the first task, so
>>>> those are just reaped of from it, and not only some particular like
>>>> mm/files but all of them, like fork does, so should be safer.
>>>>
>>>> Creds are just a special case because of that personality stuff, at least
>>>> if we add back iowq unshare handling.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we know about existing users of IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ and their use case?
>>>>
>>>> Have no clue.
>>>>
>>>>> As mm, files and other things may differ now between sqe producer and the sq_thread.
>>>>
>>>> It was always using mm/files of the ctx creator's task, aka ctx->sqo_task,
>>>> but right, for the sharing case those may be different b/w ctx, so looks
>>>> like a regression to me
>>>
>>> Good. I'll try to explore a possible way out below.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm continuing the thread here (just pasting the mail I already started to write :-)
>>>
>>> I did some more research regarding IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ in 5.12.
>>>
>>> The current logic in io_sq_offload_create() is this:
>>>
>>> + /* Retain compatibility with failing for an invalid attach attempt */
>>> + if ((ctx->flags & (IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ | IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL)) ==
>>> + IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ) {
>>> + struct fd f;
>>> +
>>> + f = fdget(p->wq_fd);
>>> + if (!f.file)
>>> + return -ENXIO;
>>> + if (f.file->f_op != &io_uring_fops) {
>>> + fdput(f);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + fdput(f);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> That means that IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ (without IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL) is completely
>>> ignored (except that we still simulate the -ENXIO and -EINVAL cases), correct?
>>> (You already agreed on that above :-)
>>
>> Yep, and we do these -ENXIO and -EINVAL for SQPOLL as well.
>>
>>> The reason for this is that io_wq is no longer maintained per io_ring_ctx,
>>> but instead it is now global per io_uring_task.
>>> Which means each userspace thread (or the sq_thread) has its own io_uring_task and
>>> thus its own io_wq.
>>
>> Just for anyone out of context, it's per process/thread/struct task/etc.
>> struct io_uring_task is just a bit of a context attached to a task ever submitted
>> io_uring requests, and its' not some special kind of a task.
>>
>>> Regarding the IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL|IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ case we still allow attaching
>>> to the sq_thread of a different io_ring_ctx. The sq_thread runs in the context of
>>> the io_uring_setup() syscall that created it. We used to switch current->mm, current->files
>>> and other things before calling __io_sq_thread() before, but we no longer do that.
>>> And this seems to be security problem to me, as it's now possible for the attached
>>> io_ring_ctx to start sqe's copying the whole address space of the donator into
>>> a registered fixed file of the attached process.
>>
>> It's not as bad, because 1) you voluntarily passes fd and 2) requires privileges,
>> but it's a change of behaviour, which, well, can be exploited as you said.
>
> Yes, but pointers and other things may have a different meaning now, as they were
> against the thread that produced the sqe's and now it's relativ to the unchanged sq_thread.
> So unmodified application may corrupt/leak there data.
>
>>> As we already ignore IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ without IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL, what about
>>> ignoring it as well if the attaching task uses different ->mm, ->files, ...
>>> So IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ would only have any effect if the task calling io_uring_setup()
>>> runs in the same context (except of the creds) as the existing sq_thread, which means it would work
>>> if multiple userspace threads of the same userspace process want to share the sq_thread and its
>>> io_wq. Everything else would be stupid (similar to the unshare() cases).
>>> But as this has worked before, we just silently ignore IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_WQ is
>>> we find a context mismatch and let io_uring_setup() silently create a new sq_thread.
>>
>> options:
>> 1. Return back all that acquire_mm_files. Not great, not as safe
>> as new io-wq, etc.
>>
>> 2. Completely ignore SQPOLL sharing. Performance regressions...
>>
>> 3. Do selected sharing. Maybe if thread group or so matches, should
>> be safer than just mm/files check (or any subset of possibly long
>> list). And there may be differences when the creator task do
>> unshare/etc., but can be patched up (from where the unshare hook came
>> in the first place).
>>
>> I like 3) but 2) may do as well. The only performance problem I see
>> is for those who wanted to use it out of threads. E.g. there even
>> was a proposal to have per-CPU SQPOLL tasks and keep them per whole
>> system.
>
> Yes 2. with having a new IORING_SETUP_ATTACH_SQ (see my other mail)
>
> Or 3. and I guess the thread group might be ok.
> But somehow 2 feels safer and we could start with fresh ideas from there.
3 should be perfectly safe, outside of someone doing unshare(). And I
think we already agreed that this case is in the realm of "garbage in,
garbage out" and we don't need to specifically cater to it. If we match
at attach time, we should be good to go.
--
Jens Axboe
