This bug was introduced in commit 950e79dd7313 ("io_uring: minor
io_cqring_wait() optimization"), which was made in preparation for
adc8682ec690 ("io_uring: Add support for napi_busy_poll"). The latter
got reverted in cb3182167325 ("Revert "io_uring: Add support for
napi_busy_poll""), so simply undo the former as well.
Fixes: 950e79dd7313 ("io_uring: minor io_cqring_wait() optimization")
Signed-off-by: Alexey Izbyshev <[email protected]>
---
io_uring/io_uring.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index cd9a137ad6ce..b764a18f3a49 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -2595,19 +2595,6 @@ static int io_cqring_wait(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, int min_events,
if (__io_cqring_events_user(ctx) >= min_events)
return 0;
- if (sig) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
- if (in_compat_syscall())
- ret = set_compat_user_sigmask((const compat_sigset_t __user *)sig,
- sigsz);
- else
-#endif
- ret = set_user_sigmask(sig, sigsz);
-
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- }
-
init_waitqueue_func_entry(&iowq.wq, io_wake_function);
iowq.wq.private = current;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&iowq.wq.entry);
@@ -2624,6 +2611,19 @@ static int io_cqring_wait(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, int min_events,
iowq.timeout = ktime_add_ns(timespec64_to_ktime(ts), ktime_get_ns());
}
+ if (sig) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
+ if (in_compat_syscall())
+ ret = set_compat_user_sigmask((const compat_sigset_t __user *)sig,
+ sigsz);
+ else
+#endif
+ ret = set_user_sigmask(sig, sigsz);
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ }
+
trace_io_uring_cqring_wait(ctx, min_events);
do {
unsigned long check_cq;
--
2.44.0
On 4/5/24 6:55 AM, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
> This bug was introduced in commit 950e79dd7313 ("io_uring: minor
> io_cqring_wait() optimization"), which was made in preparation for
> adc8682ec690 ("io_uring: Add support for napi_busy_poll"). The latter
> got reverted in cb3182167325 ("Revert "io_uring: Add support for
> napi_busy_poll""), so simply undo the former as well.
Thanks - ironically I had to hand apply this one, as some of the
commits you mention above are not in the base you used for the
patch...
--
Jens Axboe
On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:55:51 +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
> This bug was introduced in commit 950e79dd7313 ("io_uring: minor
> io_cqring_wait() optimization"), which was made in preparation for
> adc8682ec690 ("io_uring: Add support for napi_busy_poll"). The latter
> got reverted in cb3182167325 ("Revert "io_uring: Add support for
> napi_busy_poll""), so simply undo the former as well.
>
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] io_uring: Fix io_cqring_wait() not restoring sigmask on get_timespec64() failure
commit: 978e5c19dfefc271e5550efba92fcef0d3f62864
Best regards,
--
Jens Axboe
On 2024-04-06 05:06, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/5/24 6:55 AM, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> This bug was introduced in commit 950e79dd7313 ("io_uring: minor
>> io_cqring_wait() optimization"), which was made in preparation for
>> adc8682ec690 ("io_uring: Add support for napi_busy_poll"). The latter
>> got reverted in cb3182167325 ("Revert "io_uring: Add support for
>> napi_busy_poll""), so simply undo the former as well.
>
> Thanks - ironically I had to hand apply this one, as some of the
> commits you mention above are not in the base you used for the
> patch...
I used v6.8 as the base, and all three commits mentioned above are
there. However, the patch indeed doesn't apply to the current tip
because of post-v6.8 changes, sorry for that!
Thanks,
Alexey
On 4/6/24 5:12 AM, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
> On 2024-04-06 05:06, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/5/24 6:55 AM, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>>> This bug was introduced in commit 950e79dd7313 ("io_uring: minor
>>> io_cqring_wait() optimization"), which was made in preparation for
>>> adc8682ec690 ("io_uring: Add support for napi_busy_poll"). The latter
>>> got reverted in cb3182167325 ("Revert "io_uring: Add support for
>>> napi_busy_poll""), so simply undo the former as well.
>>
>> Thanks - ironically I had to hand apply this one, as some of the
>> commits you mention above are not in the base you used for the
>> patch...
>
> I used v6.8 as the base, and all three commits mentioned above are
> there. However, the patch indeed doesn't apply to the current tip
> because of post-v6.8 changes, sorry for that!
Not a problem, but it does highlight that this will certainly throw a
reject once stable tries to pick it up. Just something to keep an eye
on.
--
Jens Axboe