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;
Subject: Re: io_uring: io_grab_files() misses taking files->count?
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
References: <f0d2b7d3-2f6b-7eb2-aee0-4ff6a7daa35c@virtuozzo.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <b004838f-602d-0992-cb1d-2d083227186c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:55:38 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f0d2b7d3-2f6b-7eb2-aee0-4ff6a7daa35c@virtuozzo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2/6/20 9:32 AM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 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...

We track requests that grab files on the side, since we can't safely
grab a reference to the file table. We could have our own ring fd in the
file table, and thus create a circular reference if we incremented
files->count here.

Looks like we might need a 2nd way to know if we need to use
synchronize_rcu() or not, though I need to look into this particular
case.

-- 
Jens Axboe