On Wed 13-11-19 10:44:03, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 07:00:32PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I've spent today tracking down the syzkaller report of a WARN_ON hit in > > iov_iter_pipe() [1]. The immediate problem is that syzkaller reproducer > > (calling sendfile(2) from different threads at the same time a file to the > > same file in rather evil way) results in splice code leaking pipe pages > > (nrbufs doesn't return to 0 after read+write in the splice) and eventually > > we run out of pipe pages and hit the warning in iov_iter_pipe(). The > > problem is not specific to ext4, I can see in my tracing that when the > > underlying filesystem is XFS, we can leak the pipe pages in the same way > > (but for XFS somehow the problem doesn't happen as often). Rather the > > problem seems to be in how iomap direct IO code, pipe iter code, and splice > > code interact. > > > > So the problematic situation is when we do direct IO read into pipe pages > > and the read hits EOF which is not on page boundary. Say the file has 4608 > > (4096+512) bytes, block size == page size == 4096. What happens is that iomap > > code maps the extent, gets that the extent size is 8192 (mapping ignores > > I wonder, would this work properly if the read side returns a 4608-byte > mapping instead of an 8192-byte mapping? It doesn't make a lot of sense > (to me, anyway) for a read mapping to go beyond EOF. The slight concern I have with this is that that would change e.g. the behavior of IOMAP_REPORT. We could specialcase IOMAP_REPORT but then it gets kind of ugly. And it seems kind of fuzzy when do we truncate the extent with i_size and when not... Generally i_size is kind of a side-band thing for block mapping operations so if we could leave it out of ->iomap_begin I'd find that nicer. > > i_size). Then we call iomap_dio_bio_actor(), which creates its private > > iter, truncates it to 8192, and calls bio_iov_iter_get_pages(). That > > eventually results in preparing two pipe buffers with length 4096 to accept > > the read. Then read completes, in iomap_dio_complete() we truncate the return > > value from 8192 (which was the real amount of IO we performed) to 4608. Now > > this amount (4608) gets passed through splice code to > > iter_file_splice_write(), we write out that amount, but then when cleaning > > up pipe buffers, the last pipe buffer has still 3584 unused so we leave > > the pipe buffer allocated and effectively leak it. > > > > Now I was also investigating why the old direct IO code doesn't leak pipe > > buffers like this and the trick is done by the iov_iter_revert() call > > generic_file_read_iter(). This results in setting iter position right to > > the position where direct IO read reported it ended (4608) and truncating > > pipe buffers after this point. So splice code then sees the second pipe > > buffer has length only 512 which matches the amount it was asked to write > > and so the pipe buffer gets freed after the write in > > iter_file_splice_write(). > > > > The question is how to best fix this. The quick fix is to add > > iov_iter_revert() call to iomap_dio_rw() so that in case of sync IO (we > > always do only sync IO to pipes), we properly set iter position in case of > > short read / write. But it looks somewhat hacky to me and this whole > > interaction of iter and pipes looks fragile to me. > > > > Another option I can see is to truncate the iter to min(i_size-pos, length) in > > iomap_dio_bio_actor() which *should* do the trick AFAICT. But I'm not sure > > if it won't break something else. > > Do the truncation in ->iomap_begin on the read side, as I suggested above? Yes, that would be equivalent for this case. > > Any other ideas? > > > > As a side note the logic copying iter in iomap_dio_bio_actor() looks > > suspicious. We copy 'dio->submit.iter' to 'iter' but then in the loop we call > > iov_iter_advance() on dio->submit.iter. So if bio_iov_iter_get_pages() > > didn't return enough pages and we loop again, 'iter' will have stale > > contents and things go sideways from there? What am I missing? And why do > > we do that strange copying of iter instead of using iov_iter_truncate() and > > iov_iter_reexpand() on the 'dio->submit.iter' directly? > > I'm similarly puzzled; I would've thought that we'd need to advance the > private @iter too. Or just truncate and reexpand the dio->submit.iter > and not have the private one. > > With any luck hch will have some ideas? :/ Christoph seems to be busy with something else. So I'll just write patches, run them through fstests and see if something blows up. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
