On 4/24/24 9:04 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 4/24/24 14:36, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/23/24 8:00 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 4/22/24 14:35, Anuj Gupta wrote:
>>>> In case of write, the iov_iter gets updated before retry kicks in.
>>>> Restore the iov_iter before retrying. It can be reproduced by issuing
>>>> a write greater than device limit.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: df604d2ad480 (io_uring/rw: ensure retry condition isn't lost)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anuj Gupta <anuj20.g@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> io_uring/rw.c | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/io_uring/rw.c b/io_uring/rw.c
>>>> index 4fed829fe97c..9fadb29ec34f 100644
>>>> --- a/io_uring/rw.c
>>>> +++ b/io_uring/rw.c
>>>> @@ -1035,8 +1035,10 @@ int io_write(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
>>>> else
>>>> ret2 = -EINVAL;
>>>> - if (req->flags & REQ_F_REISSUE)
>>>> + if (req->flags & REQ_F_REISSUE) {
>>>> + iov_iter_restore(&io->iter, &io->iter_state);
>>>> return IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE;
>>>
>>> That's races with resubmission of the request, if it can happen from
>>> io-wq that'd corrupt the iter. Nor I believe that the fix that this
>>> patch fixes is correct, see
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/Zh505790%2FoufXqMn@fedora/T/#mb24d3dca84eb2d83878ea218cb0efaae34c9f026
>>>
>>> Jens, I'd suggest to revert "io_uring/rw: ensure retry condition
>>> isn't lost". I don't think we can sanely reissue from the callback
>>> unless there are better ownership rules over kiocb and iter, e.g.
>>> never touch the iter after calling the kiocb's callback.
>>
>> It is a problem, but I don't believe it's a new one. If we revert the
>> existing fix, then we'll have to deal with the failure to end the IO due
>> to the (now) missing same thread group check, though. Which should be
>
> My bad, I meant reverting the patch that removed thread group checks
> together with its fixes.
Gotcha, yeah let's do that for now. It's a bit annoying as with the
async data prep we can sanely retry anything at this point, and avoid
any random -EAGAIN bubbling back to userspace. But we do have some gaps
to cover in terms of either missing that (what the 2nd patch attempted
to do), so doesn't look like we can sanely cover that for now.
I did a revert (ish) commit, will send it out to the list shortly.
>> doable, but would be nice to get this cleaned and cleared up once and
>> for all.
>
> It's not like I'm in love with that chunk of code, if anything the
> group check was quite feeble and quite, but replacing it with sth
> clean but buggy is questionable...
It's just an awful work-around that isn't needed anymore, as it's meant
to check if we can sanely re-import. With the current code base, there's
never any need to re-import anything, and we can always sanely retry.
The problem is just that we need to be able to handle that...
> Do you think it was broken before? Because I don't see any simple
> way to fix it without propagating reissue back to io_read/write.
It's just always felt a bit fragile in how we attempt to catch the
reissue flag, never quite loved that part. Seems to be it could only be
completely solid if we remove the need to check this in the read/write
issue path completely, and leave it to the callback side. It all really
(again) boils back to how the lower level don't handle this
consistently. If we bubbled back -EAGAIN through the issue path always,
it'd be trivial to handle. But we don't, so handling it completion side
seems like the saner choice.
--
Jens Axboe
