On 10/18/19 10:36 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Ignoring the locking elision, basically the logic is now this:
>>
>> static void io_sq_wq_submit_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> {
>> struct io_kiocb *req = container_of(work, struct io_kiocb, work);
>> struct files_struct *cur_files = NULL, *old_files;
>> [...]
>> old_files = current->files;
>> [...]
>> do {
>> struct sqe_submit *s = &req->submit;
>> [...]
>> if (cur_files)
>> /* drop cur_files reference; borrow lifetime must
>> * end before here */
>> put_files_struct(cur_files);
>> /* move reference ownership to cur_files */
>> cur_files = s->files;
>> if (cur_files) {
>> task_lock(current);
>> /* current->files borrows reference from cur_files;
>> * existing borrow from previous loop ends here */
>> current->files = cur_files;
>> task_unlock(current);
>> }
>>
>> [call __io_submit_sqe()]
>> [...]
>> } while (req);
>> [...]
>> /* existing borrow ends here */
>> task_lock(current);
>> current->files = old_files;
>> task_unlock(current);
>> if (cur_files)
>> /* drop cur_files reference; borrow lifetime must
>> * end before here */
>> put_files_struct(cur_files);
>> }
>>
>> If you run two iterations of this loop, with a first element that has
>> a ->files pointer and a second element that doesn't, then in the
>> second run through the loop, the reference to the files_struct will be
>> dropped while current->files still points to it; current->files is
>> only reset after the loop has ended. If someone accesses
>> current->files through procfs directly after that, AFAICS you'd get a
>> use-after-free.
>
> Amazing how this is still broken. You are right, and it's especially
> annoying since that's exactly the case I originally talked about (not
> flipping current->files if we don't have to). I just did it wrong, so
> we'll leave a dangling pointer in ->files.
>
> The by far most common case is if one sqe has a files it needs to
> attach, then others that also have files will be the same set. So I want
> to optimize for the case where we only flip current->files once when we
> see the files, and once when we're done with the loop.
>
> Let me see if I can get this right...
I _think_ the simplest way to do it is simply to have both cur_files and
current->files hold a reference to the file table. That won't really add
any extra cost as the double increments / decrements are following each
other. Something like this incremental, totally untested.
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 2fed0badad38..b3cf3f3d7911 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -2293,9 +2293,14 @@ static void io_sq_wq_submit_work(struct work_struct
*work)
put_files_struct(cur_files);
cur_files = s->files;
if (cur_files && cur_files != current->files) {
+ struct files_struct *old;
+
+ atomic_inc(&cur_files->count);
task_lock(current);
+ old = current->files;
current->files = cur_files;
task_unlock(current);
+ put_files_struct(old);
}
if (!ret) {
@@ -2390,9 +2395,13 @@ static void io_sq_wq_submit_work(struct work_struct
*work)
mmput(cur_mm);
}
if (old_files != current->files) {
+ struct files_struct *old;
+
task_lock(current);
+ old = current->files;
current->files = old_files;
task_unlock(current);
+ put_files_struct(old);
}
if (cur_files)
put_files_struct(cur_files);
--
Jens Axboe
