diff mbox series

[1/1] io_uring: fix lost getsockopt completions

Message ID ff349cf0654018189b6077e85feed935f0f8839e.1721149870.git.asml.silence@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series [1/1] io_uring: fix lost getsockopt completions | expand

Commit Message

Pavel Begunkov July 16, 2024, 6:05 p.m. UTC
There is a report that iowq executed getsockopt never completes. The
reason being that io_uring_cmd_sock() can return a positive result, and
io_uring_cmd() propagates it back to core io_uring, instead of IOU_OK.
In case of io_wq_submit_work(), the request will be dropped without
completing it.

The offending code was introduced by a hack in
a9c3eda7eada9 ("io_uring: fix submission-failure handling for uring-cmd"),
however it was fine until getsockopt was introduced and started
returning positive results.

The right solution is to always return IOU_OK, since
e0b23d9953b0c ("io_uring: optimise ltimeout for inline execution"),
we should be able to do it without problems, however for the sake of
backporting and minimising side effects, let's keep returning negative
return codes and otherwise do IOU_OK.

Link: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/1181
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 8e9fad0e70b7b ("io_uring: Add io_uring command support for sockets")
Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
---
 io_uring/uring_cmd.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Breno Leitao July 16, 2024, 6:48 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> There is a report that iowq executed getsockopt never completes. The
> reason being that io_uring_cmd_sock() can return a positive result, and
> io_uring_cmd() propagates it back to core io_uring, instead of IOU_OK.
> In case of io_wq_submit_work(), the request will be dropped without
> completing it.
> 
> The offending code was introduced by a hack in
> a9c3eda7eada9 ("io_uring: fix submission-failure handling for uring-cmd"),
> however it was fine until getsockopt was introduced and started
> returning positive results.
> 
> The right solution is to always return IOU_OK, since
> e0b23d9953b0c ("io_uring: optimise ltimeout for inline execution"),
> we should be able to do it without problems, however for the sake of
> backporting and minimising side effects, let's keep returning negative
> return codes and otherwise do IOU_OK.
> 
> Link: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/1181
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 8e9fad0e70b7b ("io_uring: Add io_uring command support for sockets")
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>

Thanks for the fix.
Jens Axboe July 18, 2024, 8:34 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 19:05:46 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> There is a report that iowq executed getsockopt never completes. The
> reason being that io_uring_cmd_sock() can return a positive result, and
> io_uring_cmd() propagates it back to core io_uring, instead of IOU_OK.
> In case of io_wq_submit_work(), the request will be dropped without
> completing it.
> 
> The offending code was introduced by a hack in
> a9c3eda7eada9 ("io_uring: fix submission-failure handling for uring-cmd"),
> however it was fine until getsockopt was introduced and started
> returning positive results.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] io_uring: fix lost getsockopt completions
      commit: 2554b855a2f8605407a2018ca55cabb1af1feb61

Best regards,
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
index 21ac5fb2d5f0..a54163a83968 100644
--- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
+++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@  int io_uring_cmd(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
 		req_set_fail(req);
 	io_req_uring_cleanup(req, issue_flags);
 	io_req_set_res(req, ret, 0);
-	return ret;
+	return ret < 0 ? ret : IOU_OK;
 }
 
 int io_uring_cmd_import_fixed(u64 ubuf, unsigned long len, int rw,