On 9/24/24 3:40 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 09:36:59PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> * go through the VFS side of things and make sure we have a consistent
>> set of helpers that would take struct filename * - *not* the ad-hoc mix we
>> have right now, when that's basically driven by io_uring borging them in
>> one by one - or duplicates them without bothering to share helpers.
>> E.g. mkdirat(2) does getname() and passes it to do_mkdirat(), which
>> consumes the sucker; so does mknodat(2), but do_mknodat() is static. OTOH,
>> path_setxattr() does setxattr_copy(), then retry_estale loop with
>> user_path_at() + mnt_want_write() + do_setxattr() + mnt_drop_write() + path_put()
>> as a body, while on io_uring side we have retry_estale loop with filename_lookup() +
>> (io_uring helper that does mnt_want_write() + do_setxattr() + mnt_drop_write()) +
>> path_put().
>> Sure, that user_path_at() call is getname() + filename_lookup() + putname(),
>> so they are equivalent, but keeping that shite in sync is going to be trouble.
>
> BTW, re mess around xattr:
> static int __io_getxattr_prep(struct io_kiocb *req,
> const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe)
> {
> ...
> ix->ctx.cvalue = u64_to_user_ptr(READ_ONCE(sqe->addr2));
> ix->ctx.size = READ_ONCE(sqe->len);
> ...
> ret = strncpy_from_user(ix->ctx.kname->name, name,
> sizeof(ix->ctx.kname->name));
>
> }
>
> int io_fgetxattr(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
> {
> ...
> ret = do_getxattr(file_mnt_idmap(req->file),
> req->file->f_path.dentry,
> &ix->ctx);
> ...
> }
>
> ssize_t
> do_getxattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *d,
> struct xattr_ctx *ctx)
> {
> ...
> if (error > 0) {
> if (ctx->size && copy_to_user(ctx->value, ctx->kvalue, error))
> ...
> }
>
> and we have
> struct xattr_ctx {
> /* Value of attribute */
> union {
> const void __user *cvalue;
> void __user *value;
> };
> ...
> }
>
> Undefined behaviour aside, there's something odd going on here:
> why do we bother with copy-in in ->prep() when we do copy-out in
> ->issue() anyway? ->issue() does run with initiator's ->mm in use,
> right?
>
> IOW, what's the io_uring policy on what gets copied in ->prep() vs.
> in ->issue()?
The normal policy is that anything that is read-only should remain
stable after ->prep() has been called, so that ->issue() can use it.
That means the application can keep it on-stack as long as it's valid
until io_uring_submit() returns. For structs/buffers that are copied to
after IO, those the application obviously need to keep around until they
see a completion for that request. So yes, for the xattr cases where the
struct is copied to at completion time, those do not need to be stable
after ->prep(), could be handled purely on the ->issue() side.
--
Jens Axboe
