| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090305103023.GW11787@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:30:24 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
jengelh@...ozas.de, bharrosh@...asas.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.29-rc6-2450cf in scsi_lib.c (was: Large amount of
scsi-sgpool)objects
On Thu, Mar 05 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:14:36 +0100
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 05 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 05 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > > Oops, somehow I forgot to CC Jens...
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:39:17 +0900
> > > > FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:36:13 +0900
> > > > > FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > CC'ed Jens,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:56:29 +0000
> > > > > > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 22:45 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Instrumented the code and the result of the failing request is
> > > > > > > > below. Looks like the function which sets up the request gets
> > > > > > > > nr_phys_segments wrong by one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you need further trace data feel free to ask.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, the mapping all checks out correctly ... there must be something
> > > > > > > wrong with the way we count before mapping.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, looks we miscalculate nr_phys_segments in the merging path.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > blk_recount_segments() needs to set bi_seg_front_size and
> > > > > > bi_seg_back_size for ll_merge_requests_fn()?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
> > > > > > index a104593..efb65b6 100644
> > > > > > --- a/block/blk-merge.c
> > > > > > +++ b/block/blk-merge.c
> > > > > > @@ -111,12 +111,19 @@ void blk_recalc_rq_segments(struct request *rq)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void blk_recount_segments(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > + unsigned int seg_size;
> > > > > > struct bio *nxt = bio->bi_next;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bio->bi_next = NULL;
> > > > > > - bio->bi_phys_segments = __blk_recalc_rq_segments(q, bio, NULL);
> > > > > > + bio->bi_phys_segments = __blk_recalc_rq_segments(q, bio, &seg_size);
> > > > > > bio->bi_next = nxt;
> > > > > > bio->bi_flags |= (1 << BIO_SEG_VALID);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (bio->bi_phys_segments == 1 && seg_size > bio->bi_seg_front_size)
> > > > > > + bio->bi_seg_front_size = seg_size;
> > > > > > + if (bio->bi_phys_segments > bio->bi_seg_back_size)
> > > > > > + bio->bi_seg_back_size = seg_size;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_recount_segments);
> > > > >
> > > > > Duh, here's the proper patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
> > > > > index a104593..06e0db4 100644
> > > > > --- a/block/blk-merge.c
> > > > > +++ b/block/blk-merge.c
> > > > > @@ -111,12 +111,19 @@ void blk_recalc_rq_segments(struct request *rq)
> > > > >
> > > > > void blk_recount_segments(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> > > > > {
> > > > > + unsigned int seg_size;
> > > > > struct bio *nxt = bio->bi_next;
> > > > >
> > > > > bio->bi_next = NULL;
> > > > > - bio->bi_phys_segments = __blk_recalc_rq_segments(q, bio, NULL);
> > > > > + bio->bi_phys_segments = __blk_recalc_rq_segments(q, bio, &seg_size);
> > > > > bio->bi_next = nxt;
> > > > > bio->bi_flags |= (1 << BIO_SEG_VALID);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (bio->bi_phys_segments == 1 && seg_size > bio->bi_seg_front_size)
> > > > > + bio->bi_seg_front_size = seg_size;
> > > > > + if (seg_size > bio->bi_seg_back_size)
> > > > > + bio->bi_seg_back_size = seg_size;
> > > > > +
> > > > > }
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_recount_segments);
> > >
> > > Good catch, I merged it with a slight change of layout and clearing
> > > seg_size initially, to avoid gcc silly errors.
> >
> > While merging that, I think we can do better than this. Essentially we
> > just need to have __blk_recalc_rq_segments() track the back bio as well,
> > then we don't have to pass in a pointer for segment sizes.
> >
> > Totally untested, comments welcome...
>
> Yeah, I think that updating bi_seg_front_size and bi_seg_back_size at
> one place, __blk_recalc_rq_segments, is better. I thought about the
> same way. But we are already in -rc7 and this must go into mainline
> now. So I chose a less-intrusive way (similar to what we have done in
> the past).
>
> As you know, the merging code is really complicated and we could
> overlook stuff easily. ;) It might be better to simplify the merging
> code a bit.
If someone (Ingo?) is willing to test the last variant, I'd much rather
add that. It does simplify it (imho), and it kills 23 lines while only
adding 9. But a quick response would be nice, then I can ask Linus to
pull it later today.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists