linux-kernel - Re: Timeout regression introduced by 242f9dcb8ba6f68fcd217a119a7648a4f69290e9

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:02:56 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Timeout regression introduced
	by	242f9dcb8ba6f68fcd217a119a7648a4f69290e9

On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 14:26 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Mike Anderson wrote:
> > > Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >> James Bottomley wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 18:46 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >>>> Hello, Jens.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Commit 242f9dcb8ba6f68fcd217a119a7648a4f69290e9 introduces a strange
> > >>>> regression for libata.  The second timeout gives puts different
> > >>>> pointer from the issued command onto eh_cmd_q breaking libata EH
> > >>>> command matching which triggers WARN_ON() in ata_eh_finish() and hangs
> > >>>> command processing or causes oops later depending on circumstances.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here are logs with induced timeouts (patch attached).  In commit
> > >>>> 242f9dcb8, the XXX messages for the second timeout shows different
> > >>>> scsi_cmd pointers for eh_cmd_q and qc->scmd which is initialized by
> > >>>> ata_scsi_qc_new() during command translation.
> > >>> I can't see a way we could be getting a different command passed in from
> > >>> the actual one, since the only way to lose the command from the request
> > >>> is to go through the command completion routines which free it (and end
> > >>> the request).
> > >> I have no idea either.  It's something in the timeout logic because on
> > >> the issue path the scmd pointer is identical but on tiemout pointer
> > >> for another scmd is queued on eh_cmd_q, which doesn't make much sense.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I was trying to recreate this error using ata_ram wth v2.6.28-rc2.
> > > Currently I am not able to see this error on timeout recovery using this
> > > setup. Does IO load (or other factors) effect the error being seen?
> > 
> > Not at all.  That's the only write command I issued.
> 
> It's all extremely puzzling. Any chance I could talk you into stuffing
> some debug printks in there to see what the hell is going on?

Right ... me too.  The number one thing I want to see is what SCSI
commands are going to what controllers ... that might tell us which one
is bogus and where it's coming from.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/