| 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: <20100908170428.08372cce@notabene>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:04:28 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@...il.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md: do not use ++ in rcu_dereference() argument
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:21:28 +0200
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> > Comments?
>
> Looks better but can still use a few improvements.
> See below.
Thanks for your review and comments....
>
> Sam
> >
> > Thanks,
> > NeilBrown
> >
> > commit e4062735c8f7233923df5858ed20f1278f3ee669
> > Author: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > Date: Mon Sep 6 14:10:08 2010 +1000
> >
> > md: tidy up device searches in read_balance.
> >
> > We have a pre-increment side-effect in the arg to a macro:
> > rcu_dereference
> >
> > This is poor form and triggers a warning. Rather than just fix that,
> > take the opportunity to re-write the code it make it more readable.
> >
> > Reported-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > index ad83a4d..e29e13f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > @@ -420,11 +420,13 @@ static void raid1_end_write_request(struct bio *bio, int error)
> > static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
> > {
> > const sector_t this_sector = r1_bio->sector;
> > - int new_disk = conf->last_used, disk = new_disk;
> > - int wonly_disk = -1;
> > + int new_disk = -1;
> > + int start_disk;
> > + int i;
> > const int sectors = r1_bio->sectors;
> > sector_t new_distance, current_distance;
> > mdk_rdev_t *rdev;
> > + int choose_first;
>
> To increase readability the general recommendation is:
> 1) Sort variable definitions with the longest first.
> 2) Do not assing variables when they are defined, do that on a separate line
> below the variable definitions.
> With one empty line after variable definitions.
>
I'm don't really agree with this. I think declaring related variables
together is much more important that sorting them by length. I guess it is a
very subjective thing.
And I think initialising at the point of declaration is often a good idea,
though not always.
I've moved 'sectors' up near 'this_sector' but nothing else.
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > /*
> > @@ -435,54 +437,35 @@ static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
> > retry:
> > if (conf->mddev->recovery_cp < MaxSector &&
> > (this_sector + sectors >= conf->next_resync)) {
> > - /* Choose the first operational device, for consistancy */
> > - new_disk = 0;
> > -
> > - for (rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
> > - r1_bio->bios[new_disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
> > - !rdev || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)
> > - || test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags);
> > - rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[++new_disk].rdev)) {
> > -
> > - if (rdev && test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> > - r1_bio->bios[new_disk] != IO_BLOCKED)
> > - wonly_disk = new_disk;
> > -
> > - if (new_disk == conf->raid_disks - 1) {
> > - new_disk = wonly_disk;
> > - break;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - goto rb_out;
> > + choose_first = 1;
> > + start_disk = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + choose_first = 0;
> > + start_disk = conf->last_used;
> > }
> >
> > -
> > /* make sure the disk is operational */
> > - for (rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
> > - r1_bio->bios[new_disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
> > - !rdev || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) ||
> > - test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags);
> > - rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev)) {
> > -
> > - if (rdev && test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
> > - r1_bio->bios[new_disk] != IO_BLOCKED)
> > - wonly_disk = new_disk;
> > -
> > - if (new_disk <= 0)
> > - new_disk = conf->raid_disks;
> > - new_disk--;
> > - if (new_disk == disk) {
> > - new_disk = wonly_disk;
> > - break;
> > + for (i = 0 ; i < conf->raid_disks ; i++) {
> > + int disk = start_disk + i;
> > + if (disk >= conf->raid_disks)
> > + disk -= conf->raid_disks;
> 1) Please comment on the purpose of the for loop
That would be the comment "make sure the disk is operational" ??
> 2) See comments above aboyt variable definitions
Still disagree - sorry.
>
> > +
> > + if (r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED
> > + || !(rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[disk].rdev))
> > + || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags))
> The rather complex expression - which includes a well hidden assignment -
> is repeated a few lines later.
> Please use a helper function and do not use such hidden assignments.
I've moved the assignment out but I don't agree that a helper function is
needed.
Once must balance the total complexity of the function (which should be kept
low) against the cost of having to go look at a separate piece of code to see
what a helper function actually does.
In this case I think that separating this code out would be 'hiding' rather
than 'abstraction'.
>
>
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags)) {
> > + new_disk = disk;
> > + continue;
> > }
> > + new_disk = disk;
> > + break;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -491,20 +474,20 @@ static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
> > if (this_sector == conf->mirrors[new_disk].head_position)
> > goto rb_out;
> >
> > - current_distance = abs(this_sector - conf->mirrors[disk].head_position);
> > + current_distance = abs(this_sector
> > + - conf->mirrors[new_disk].head_position);
> >
> > - /* Find the disk whose head is closest */
> > + /* look for a better disk - i.e. head is closer */
> > + start_disk = new_disk;
> > + for (i = 1; i < conf->raid_disks; i++) {
> > + int disk = start_disk + 1;
> > + if (disk >= conf->raid_disks)
> > + disk -= conf->raid_disks;
> See comments about for loop above.
> I also cannot see why we suddenly start with 1 where the other
> almost identical for loop starts with 0?
> If I wonder then someone else will wonder too => comment please.
Before we were finding a working disk.
Now were a finding a better disk.
First is an absolute statement that needs to consider every device,
second is comparative and only needs to consider every other device (... uhm,
that doesn't sound right - I don't mean every second device, I mean every
device that isn't this one).
Suggestions on a comment that would make that clearer?
>
> >
> > - do {
> > - if (disk <= 0)
> > - disk = conf->raid_disks;
> > - disk--;
> > -
> > - rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[disk].rdev);
> > -
> > - if (!rdev || r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
> > - !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) ||
> > - test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags))
> > + if (r1_bio->bios[disk] == IO_BLOCKED
> > + || !(rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[disk].rdev))
> > + || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)
> > + || test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags))
> > continue;
> Here the complex expression is repeated - at least almost identical.
The 'almost' is key.
There are two if conditions that are similar but different. And only two.
Factoring parts out would still leave one of them a little complex and would
split the task of understanding the condition over two separate parts of
program text.
I don't think the benefits of a function out-weigh the costs.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> >
> > if (!atomic_read(&rdev->nr_pending)) {
> > @@ -516,11 +499,9 @@ static int read_balance(conf_t *conf, r1bio_t *r1_bio)
> > current_distance = new_distance;
> > new_disk = disk;
> > }
> > - } while (disk != conf->last_used);
> > + }
> >
> > rb_out:
> > -
> > -
> > if (new_disk >= 0) {
> > rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
> > if (!rdev)
> >
>
> Sam
--
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