linux-kernel - Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage device is removed

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1108291637470.3904@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:42:14 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Lin Ming <lxy@...pku.edu.cn>
cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage
 device is removed

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the atomic operations I do not think that implicit memory
> > barriers are needed here as atomic_dec_and_test() implies memory
> 
> Which implicit memory barrier you are talking about?

smp_mb() at both side of the operation as documented here in
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

[citation]
Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns
information about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional
general memory barrier (smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation
(with the exception of explicit lock operations, described later).
These include:

	xchg();
	cmpxchg();
	atomic_cmpxchg();
	atomic_inc_return();
	atomic_dec_return();
	atomic_add_return();
	atomic_sub_return();
	atomic_inc_and_test();
	atomic_dec_and_test();
	atomic_sub_and_test();
	atomic_add_negative();
	atomic_add_unless();
	test_and_set_bit();
	test_and_clear_bit();
	test_and_change_bit();

[/citation]

-Lukas

> 
> > barrier, atomic_set() is out of the scope of our interest (and it would
> > not cause the problem like that anyway) and reordering atomic_inc()
> > would not cause problem like this as well.
> 
--
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/