[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1103111530120.3686@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:31:15 +0100 (CET)
From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: fix mis-synchronisation in
blkdev_issue_zeroout()
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > BZ29402
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29402
> >
> > We can hit serious mis-synchronization in bio completion path of
> > blkdev_issue_zeroout() leading to a panic.
> >
> > The problem is that when we are going to wait_for_completion() in
> > blkdev_issue_zeroout() we check if the bb.done equals issued (number of
> > submitted bios). If it does, we can skip the wait_for_completition()
> > and just out of the function since there is nothing to wait for.
> > However, there is a ordering problem because bio_batch_end_io() is
> > calling atomic_inc(&bb->done) before complete(), hence it might seem to
> > blkdev_issue_zeroout() that all bios has been completed and exit. At
> > this point when bio_batch_end_io() is going to call complete(bb->wait),
> > bb and wait does not longer exist since it was allocated on stack in
> > blkdev_issue_zeroout() ==> panic!
> >
> > (thread 1) (thread 2)
> > bio_batch_end_io() blkdev_issue_zeroout()
> > if(bb) { ...
> > if (bb->end_io) ...
> > bb->end_io(bio, err); ...
> > atomic_inc(&bb->done); ...
> > ... while (issued != atomic_read(&bb.done))
> > ... (let issued == bb.done)
> > ... (do the rest of the function)
> > ... return ret;
> > complete(bb->wait);
> > ^^^^^^^^
> > panic
> >
> > We can fix this easily by simplifying bio_batch and completion counting.
> >
> > Also remove bio_end_io_t *end_io since it is not used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > Reported-by: Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@...com>
> > Tested-by: Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@...com>
> > CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> > CC: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
> > CC: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > block/blk-lib.c | 19 +++++++------------
> > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> > index eec78be..bd3e8df 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> > @@ -109,7 +109,6 @@ struct bio_batch
> > atomic_t done;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > struct completion *wait;
> > - bio_end_io_t *end_io;
> > };
> >
> > static void bio_batch_end_io(struct bio *bio, int err)
> > @@ -122,12 +121,9 @@ static void bio_batch_end_io(struct bio *bio, int err)
> > else
> > clear_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &bb->flags);
> > }
> > - if (bb) {
> > - if (bb->end_io)
> > - bb->end_io(bio, err);
> > - atomic_inc(&bb->done);
> > - complete(bb->wait);
> > - }
> > + if (bb)
> > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bb->done))
> > + complete(bb->wait);
>
> I think bb will always be set here, no real need to check.
>
> Anyway, I though I already added my:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
>
> to this. No?
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
Yes, you did and I forgot to add it into the patch. Sorry about that.
Thanks!
-Lukas
--
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