Re: [PATCH 1/8] aio: make sure file is pinned

From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
	kgraul@linux.ibm.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com,
	kyeongdon kim <kyeongdon.kim@lge.com>,
	Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	pabeni@redhat.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, zhengbin <zhengbin13@huawei.com>,
	bcrl@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-aio@kvack.org, houtao1@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] aio: make sure file is pinned
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 00:48:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307004828.GZ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307004159.GY2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:41:59AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 04:23:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:03 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > >
> > > "aio: remove the extra get_file/fput pair in io_submit_one" was
> > > too optimistic - not dereferencing file pointer after e.g.
> > > ->write_iter() returns is not enough; that reference might've been
> > > the only thing that kept alive objects that are referenced
> > > *before* the method returns.  Such as inode, for example...
> > 
> > I still; think that this is actually _worse_ than just having the
> > refcount on the req instead.
> > 
> > As it is, we have that completely insane "ref can go away from under
> > us", because nothing keeps that around, which then causes all those
> > other crazy issues with "woken" etc garbage.
> >
> > I think we should be able to get rid of those entirely. Make the
> > poll() case just return zero if it has added the entry successfully to
> > poll queue.  No need for "woken", no need for all that odd "oh, but
> > now the req might no longer exist".
> 
> Not really.  Sure, you can get rid of "might no longer exist"
> considerations, but you still need to decide which way do we want to
> handle it.  There are 3 cases:
> 	* it's already taken up; don't put on the list for possible
> cancel, don't call aio_complete().
> 	* will eventually be woken up; put on the list for possible
> cancle, don't call aio_complete().
> 	* wanted to be on several queues, fortunately not woken up
> yet.  Make sure it's gone from queue, return an error.
> 	* none of the above, and ->poll() has reported what we wanted
> from the very beginning.  Remove from queue, call aio_complete().
> 
> You'll need some logics to handle that.  I can buy the "if we know
> the req is still alive, we can check if it's still queued instead of
> separate woken flag", but but it won't win you much ;-/

If anything, the one good reason for refcount would be the risk that
some ->read_iter() or ->write_iter() will try to dereference iocb
after having decided to return -EIOCBQUEUED and submitted all bios.
I think that doesn't happen, but making sure it doesn't would be
a good argument in favour of that refcount.