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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).