Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: io_uring: io_grab_files() misses taking files->count?
Message-ID: <f0d2b7d3-2f6b-7eb2-aee0-4ff6a7daa35c@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 19:32:20 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Jens,

in io_grab_files() we take pointer to current->files without taking files->count.
Later, this files become attached to worker in io_worker_handle_work() also without
any manipulation with counter.

But files->count is used for different optimizations. Say, in expand_fdtable() we
avoid synchonize_rcu() in case of there is only files user. In case of there are
more users, missing of synchronize_rcu() is not safe.

Is this correct? Or maybe there is some hidden logic in io_uring, which prevents
this problem? Say, IORING_OP_OPENAT/CLOSE/ETC can't be propagated to worker etc...

Kirill