From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: io-uring: KASAN failure, presumably
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 12:24:31 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c55f383-7574-8519-067d-cdf1a84ee95c@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C5C0EB71-B05E-4FE6-871D-900231F8454B@gmail.com>
On 9/12/21 12:21 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/11/21 8:34 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Hello Jens (& Pavel),
>>>
>>> I hope you are having a nice weekend. I ran into a KASAN failure in io-uring
>>> which I think is not "my fault".
>>>
>>> The failure does not happen very infrequently, so my analysis is based on
>>> reading the code. IIUC the failure, then I do not understand the code well
>>> enough, as to say I do not understand how it was supposed to work. I would
>>> appreciate your feedback.
>>>
>>> The failure happens on my own custom kernel (do not try to correlate the line
>>> numbers). The gist of the splat is:
>>
>> I think this is specific to your use case, but I also think that we
>> should narrow the scope for this type of REQ_F_REISSUE trigger. It
>> really should only happen on bdev backed regular files, where we cannot
>> easily pass back congestion. For that case, the completion for this is
>> called while we're in ->write_iter() for example, and hence there is no
>> race here.
>>
>> I'll ponder this a bit…
>
> I see what you are saying. The assumption is that write_iter() is setting
> REQ_F_REISSUE, which is not the case in my use-case.
Yes exactly, and hence why I think we need to tighten this check to only
be for bdev backed files.
> Perhaps EAGAIN is
> anyhow not the right return value (in my case). I am not sure any other
> “invalid" use-case exists, but some documentation/assertion(?) can help.
>
> I changed the return error-codes and check that the issue is not
> triggered again.
>
> Thanks, as usual, for the quick response.
OK good, thanks for confirming!
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-12 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-12 2:34 io-uring: KASAN failure, presumably Nadav Amit
2021-09-12 4:43 ` io-uring: KASAN failure, presumably REQ_F_REISSUE issue Nadav Amit
2021-09-12 13:00 ` io-uring: KASAN failure, presumably Jens Axboe
2021-09-12 18:15 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-12 18:21 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-12 18:24 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3c55f383-7574-8519-067d-cdf1a84ee95c@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.