[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003080321190.25635@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:35:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
cc: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm: max_segments=1 if merge_bvec_fn is not supported
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 22:10:13 +0100
> Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com> wrote:
>
> > If the lower device exposes a merge_bvec_fn,
> > dm_set_device_limits() restricts max_sectors
> > to PAGE_SIZE "just to be safe".
> >
> > This is not sufficient, however.
> >
> > If someone uses bio_add_page() to add 8 disjunct 512 byte partial
> > pages to a bio, it would succeed, but could still cross a border
> > of whatever restrictions are below us (e.g. raid10 stripe boundary).
> > An attempted bio_split() would not succeed, because bi_vcnt is 8.
> >
> > One example that triggered this frequently is the xen io layer.
> >
> > raid10_make_request bug: can't convert block across chunks or bigger than 64k 209265151 1
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lars <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Neil: you may want to double check linear.c and raid*.c for similar logic,
> > even though it is unlikely that someone puts md raid6 on top of something
> > exposing a merge_bvec_fn.
> >
>
> Unlikely, but by no means impossible. I have queued up an appropriate fix
> for md.
>
> Thanks!
>
> NeilBrown
Hi
That patch with limits->max_segments = 1; is wrong. It fixes this bug
sometimes and sometimes not.
The problem is, if someone attempts to create a bio with two vector
entries, the first maps the last sector contained in some page and the
second maps the first sector of the next physical page: it has one
segment, it has size <= PAGE_SIZE, but it still may cross raid stripe and
the raid driver will reject it.
> > This is not the first time this has been patched, btw.
> > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440093
> > and the patch by Mikulas:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=342638&action=diff
Look at this patch, it is the proper way how to fix it: create a
merge_bvec_fn that reject more than one biovec entry.
Mikulas
> > ---
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > index 4b22feb..c686ff4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > @@ -515,14 +515,22 @@ int dm_set_device_limits(struct dm_target *ti, struct dm_dev *dev,
> >
> > /*
> > * Check if merge fn is supported.
> > - * If not we'll force DM to use PAGE_SIZE or
> > + * If not we'll force DM to use single bio_vec of PAGE_SIZE or
> > * smaller I/O, just to be safe.
> > */
> >
> > - if (q->merge_bvec_fn && !ti->type->merge)
> > + if (q->merge_bvec_fn && !ti->type->merge) {
> > limits->max_sectors =
> > min_not_zero(limits->max_sectors,
> > (unsigned int) (PAGE_SIZE >> 9));
> > + /* Restricting max_sectors is not enough.
> > + * If someone uses bio_add_page to add 8 disjunct 512 byte
> > + * partial pages to a bio, it would succeed,
> > + * but could still cross a border of whatever restrictions
> > + * are below us (e.g. raid0 stripe boundary). An attempted
> > + * bio_split() would not succeed, because bi_vcnt is 8. */
> > + limits->max_segments = 1;
> > + }
> > return 0;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dm_set_device_limits);
>
--
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