On 2/12/19 1:23 PM, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> On 12/02/2019 17:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/12/19 10:21 AM, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2019 15:17, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/19 5:29 AM, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/2019 15:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/8/19 7:02 AM, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/02/2019 12:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/8/19 5:17 AM, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +static int io_sqe_files_scm(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_NET)
>>>>>>>>>> + struct scm_fp_list *fpl = ctx->user_files;
>>>>>>>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb;
>>>>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + skb = __alloc_skb(0, GFP_KERNEL, 0, NUMA_NO_NODE);
>>>>>>>>>> + if (!skb)
>>>>>>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + skb->sk = ctx->ring_sock->sk;
>>>>>>>>>> + skb->destructor = unix_destruct_scm;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + fpl->user = get_uid(ctx->user);
>>>>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < fpl->count; i++) {
>>>>>>>>>> + get_file(fpl->fp[i]);
>>>>>>>>>> + unix_inflight(fpl->user, fpl->fp[i]);
>>>>>>>>>> + fput(fpl->fp[i]);
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + UNIXCB(skb).fp = fpl;
>>>>>>>>>> + skb_queue_head(&ctx->ring_sock->sk->sk_receive_queue, skb);
>>>>>>>>> This code sounds elegant if you know about the existence of unix_gc(),
>>>>>>>>> but quite mysterious if you don't. (E.g. why "inflight"?) Could we
>>>>>>>>> have a brief comment, to comfort mortal readers on their journey?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /* A message on a unix socket can hold a reference to a file. This can
>>>>>>>>> cause a reference cycle. So there is a garbage collector for unix
>>>>>>>>> sockets, which we hook into here. */
>>>>>>>> Yes that's a good idea, I've added a comment as to why we go through
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> trouble of doing this socket + skb dance.
>>>>>>> Great, thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this is bypassing too_many_unix_fds() though? I understood
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> was intended to bound kernel memory allocation, at least in principle.
>>>>>>>> As the code stands above, it'll cap it at 253. I'm just now reworking
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> to NOT be limited to the SCM max fd count, but still impose a limit of
>>>>>>>> 1024 on the number of registered files. This is important to cap the
>>>>>>>> memory allocation attempt as well.
>>>>>>> I saw you were limiting to SCM_MAX_FD per io_uring. On the other hand,
>>>>>>> there's no specific limit on the number of io_urings you can open (only
>>>>>>> the standard limits on fds). So this would let you allocate hundreds of
>>>>>>> times more files than the previous limit RLIMIT_NOFILE...
>>>>>> But there is, the io_uring itself is under the memlock rlimit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static inline bool too_many_unix_fds(struct task_struct *p)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct user_struct *user = current_user();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (unlikely(user->unix_inflight > task_rlimit(p,
>>>>>>> RLIMIT_NOFILE)))
>>>>>>> return !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) &&
>>>>>>> !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
>>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RLIMIT_NOFILE is technically per-task, but here it is capping
>>>>>>> unix_inflight per-user. So the way I look at this, the number of file
>>>>>>> descriptors per user is bounded by NOFILE * NPROC. Then
>>>>>>> user->unix_inflight can have one additional process' worth (NOFILE) of
>>>>>>> "inflight" files. (Plus SCM_MAX_FD slop, because too_many_fds() is only
>>>>>>> called once per SCM_RIGHTS).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because io_uring doesn't check too_many_unix_fds(), I think it will let
>>>>>>> you have about 253 (or 1024) more process' worth of open files. That
>>>>>>> could be big proportionally when RLIMIT_NPROC is low.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if it matters. It maybe reads like an oversight though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (If it does matter, it might be cleanest to change too_many_unix_fds()
>>>>>>> to get rid of the "slop". Since that may be different between af_unix
>>>>>>> and io_uring; 253 v.s. 1024 or whatever. E.g. add a parameter for the
>>>>>>> number of inflight files we want to add.)
>>>>>> I don't think it matters. The files in the fixed file set have already
>>>>>> been opened by the application, so it counts towards the number of open
>>>>>> files that is allowed to have. I don't think we should impose further
>>>>>> limits on top of that.
>>>>> A process can open one io_uring and 199 other files. Register the 199
>>>>> files in the io_uring, then close their file descriptors. The main
>>>>> NOFILE limit only counts file descriptors. So then you can open one
>>>>> io_uring, 198 other files, and repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, I had forgotten the memlock limit on io_uring. That makes
>>>>> it much less of a practical problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it raises a second point. It's not just that it lets users allocate
>>>>> more files. You might not want to be limited by user->unix_inflight.
>>>>> But you are calling unix_inflight(), which increments it! Then if
>>>>> unix->inflight exceeds the NOFILE limit, you will avoid seeing any
>>>>> errors with io_uring, but the user will not be able to send files over
>>>>> unix sockets.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think this is confusing to read, and confusing to troubleshoot if
>>>>> the limit is ever hit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be happy if io_uring didn't increment user->unix_inflight. I'm
>>>>> not sure what the best way is to arrange that.
>>>> How about we just do something like the below? I think that's the saner
>>>> approach, rather than bypass user->unix_inflight. It's literally the
>>>> same thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> index a4973af1c272..5196b3aa935e 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>> @@ -2041,6 +2041,13 @@ static int __io_sqe_files_scm(struct io_ring_ctx
>>>> *ctx, int nr, int offset)
>>>> struct sk_buff *skb;
>>>> int i;
>>>>
>>>> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
>>>> + struct user_struct *user = ctx->user;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (user->unix_inflight > task_rlimit(current, RLIMIT_NOFILE))
>>>> + return -EMFILE;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> fpl = kzalloc(sizeof(*fpl), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> if (!fpl)
>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Welp, you gave me exactly what I asked for. So now I'd better be
>>> positive about it :-D.
>> ;-)
>>
>>> I hope this will be documented accurately, at least where the EMFILE
>>> result is explained for this syscall.
>> How's this:
>>
>> http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/liburing/commit/?id=37e48698a09aa1e37690f8fa6dfd8da69a48ee60
>
> +.B EMFILE
> +.BR IORING_REGISTER_FILES
> +was specified and adding
> +.I nr_args
> +file references would exceed the maximum allowed number of files the process
> +is allowed to have according to the
> +.B
> +RLIMIT_NOFILE
> +resource limit and the caller does not have
> +.B CAP_SYS_RESOURCE
> +capability.
> +.TP
>
> I was struggling with this. The POSIX part of RLIMIT_NOFILE is applied
> per-process. But the part we're talking about here, the Linux-specific
> "unix_inflight" resource, is actually accounted per-user. It's like
> RLIMIT_NPROC. The value of RLIMIT_NPROC is per-process, but the
> resource it limits is counted in user->processes.
>
> This subtlety of the NOFILE limit is not made clear in the text above,
> nor in unix(7), nor in getrlimit(2). I would interpret all these docs
> as saying this limit is a per-process thing - I think they are misleading.
Fair point, I'll add an update to clearly state it's a per process
limit.
> IORING_MAX_FIXED_FILES is being raised to 1024, which is the same as the
> (soft limit) value for RLIMIT_NOFILE which the kernel sets for the init
> process. I have an unjustifiable nervousness, that there will be some
> `fio` command, or a test written that maxes out IORING_REGISTER_FILES.
> When you do that, it will provoke unexpected failures e.g. in GUI apps.
> If we can't rule that out, the next best thing is a friendly man page.
If we apply the limit to sendmsg and friends, it should be applied here
as well.
--
Jens Axboe
