Re: [PATCH RFC 5/6] epoll: Add implementation for epoll_mod_wait

[Fam Zheng]

On Tue, 01/20 23:56, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > This syscall is a sequence of
> > 
> > 1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
> > 2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
> > 
> > The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
> > separate syscalls to insert/delete/update the fds before poll. It is more
> > efficient if the set of fds varies from one poll to another, which is the
> > common pattern for certain applications. For example, depending on the input
> > buffer status, a data reading program may decide to temporarily not polling an
> > fd.
> > 
> > Because the enablement of batching in this interface, even that regular
> > epoll_ctl call sequence, which manipulates several fds, can be optimized to one
> > single epoll_ctl_wait (while specifying spec=NULL to skip the poll part).
> > 
> > The only complexity is returning the result of each operation.  For each
> > epoll_mod_cmd in cmds, the field "error" is an output field that will be stored
> > the return code *iff* the command is executed (0 for success and -errno of the
> > equivalent epoll_ctl call), and will be left unchanged if the command is not
> > executed because some earlier error, for example due to failure of
> > copy_from_user to copy the array.
> > 
> > Applications can utilize this fact to do error handling: they could initialize
> > all the epoll_mod_wait.error to a positive value, which is by definition not a
> > possible output value from epoll_mod_wait. Then when the syscall returned, they
> > know whether or not the command is executed by comparing each error with the
> > init value, if they're different, they have the result of the command.
> > More roughly, they can put any non-zero and not distinguish "not run" from
> > failure.
> > 
> > Also, timeout parameter is enhanced: timespec is used, compared to the old ms
> > scalar. This provides higher precision. The parameter field in struct
> > epoll_wait_spec, "clockid", also makes it possible for users to use a different
> > clock than the default when it makes more sense.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <famz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/eventpoll.c           | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/syscalls.h |  5 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > index e7a116d..2cc22c9 100644
> > --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> > +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > @@ -2067,6 +2067,66 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(epoll_pwait, int, epfd, struct epoll_event __user *, events,
> >  			      sigmask ? &ksigmask : NULL);
> >  }
> >  
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE5(epoll_mod_wait, int, epfd, int, flags,
> > +		int, ncmds, struct epoll_mod_cmd __user *, cmds,
> > +		struct epoll_wait_spec __user *, spec)
> > +{
> > +	struct epoll_mod_cmd *kcmds = NULL;
> > +	int i, ret = 0;
> > +	int cmd_size = sizeof(struct epoll_mod_cmd) * ncmds;
> > +
> > +	if (flags)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if (ncmds) {
> > +		if (!cmds)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +		kcmds = kmalloc(cmd_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		if (!kcmds)
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +		if (copy_from_user(kcmds, cmds, cmd_size)) {
> > +			ret = -EFAULT;
> > +			goto out;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ncmds; i++) {
> > +		struct epoll_event ev = (struct epoll_event) {
> > +			.events = kcmds[i].events,
> > +			.data = kcmds[i].data,
> > +		};
> > +		if (kcmds[i].flags) {
> > +			kcmds[i].error = ret = -EINVAL;
> > +			goto out;
> > +		}
> > +		kcmds[i].error = ret = ep_ctl_do(epfd, kcmds[i].op, kcmds[i].fd, ev);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			goto out;
> > +	}
> > +	if (spec) {
> > +		sigset_t ksigmask;
> > +		struct epoll_wait_spec kspec;
> > +		ktime_t timeout;
> > +
> > +		if(copy_from_user(&kspec, spec, sizeof(struct epoll_wait_spec)))
> > +			return -EFAULT;
> This should probably be goto out, or you'll leak kcmds.
> 
> > +		if (kspec.sigmask) {
> > +			if (kspec.sigsetsize != sizeof(sigset_t))
> > +				return -EINVAL;
> Same here...
> 
> > +			if (copy_from_user(&ksigmask, kspec.sigmask, sizeof(ksigmask)))
> > +				return -EFAULT;
> and here.
> 
> > +		}
> > +		timeout = timespec_to_ktime(kspec.timeout);
> > +		ret = epoll_pwait_do(epfd, kspec.events, kspec.maxevents,
> > +				     kspec.clockid, timeout,
> > +				     kspec.sigmask ? &ksigmask : NULL);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +out:
> > +	if (ncmds && copy_to_user(cmds, kcmds, cmd_size))
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> This will also leak kcmds, it should be ret = -EFAULT. This case, however, seems
> to lead to a weird corner case: if cmds is read-only, we'll end up executing
> every command but fail to copy out the return values, so when userspace gets the
> EFAULT, it won't know whether anything was executed. But, getting an EFAULT here
> means you're probably doing something wrong anyways, so maybe not the biggest
> concern.

Yes, thanks! Will fix this.

Fam

> 
> > +	kfree(kcmds);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> >  COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE6(epoll_pwait, int, epfd,
> >  		       struct epoll_event __user *, events,
> > diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls.h b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > index 85893d7..7156c80 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> >  #define _LINUX_SYSCALLS_H
> >  
> >  struct epoll_event;
> > +struct epoll_mod_cmd;
> > +struct epoll_wait_spec;
> >  struct iattr;
> >  struct inode;
> >  struct iocb;
> > @@ -630,6 +632,9 @@ asmlinkage long sys_epoll_pwait(int epfd, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> >  				int maxevents, int timeout,
> >  				const sigset_t __user *sigmask,
> >  				size_t sigsetsize);
> > +asmlinkage long sys_epoll_mod_wait(int epfd, int flags,
> > +				   int ncmds, struct epoll_mod_cmd __user * cmds,
> > +				   struct epoll_wait_spec __user * spec);
> >  asmlinkage long sys_gethostname(char __user *name, int len);
> >  asmlinkage long sys_sethostname(char __user *name, int len);
> >  asmlinkage long sys_setdomainname(char __user *name, int len);
> > -- 
> > 1.9.3
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> -- 
> Omar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/