| 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: <20111019101220.GE25794@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:12:21 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [virt] virtio-blk: Use ida to allocate disk index
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:41:56AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 05:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Rusty,
> >>> Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but as
> >>> per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety. What's your opinion?
> >>>
> >>> commit 4034cc68157bfa0b6622efe368488d3d3e20f4e6
> >>> Author: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> >>> Date: Sat Feb 21 11:04:45 2009 +0900
> >>>
> >>> [SCSI] sd: revive sd_index_lock
> >>>
> >>> Commit f27bac2761cab5a2e212dea602d22457a9aa6943 which converted sd to
> >>> use ida instead of idr incorrectly removed sd_index_lock around id
> >>> allocation and free. idr/ida do have internal locks but they protect
> >>> their free object lists not the allocation itself. The caller is
> >>> responsible for that. This missing synchronization led to the same id
> >>> being assigned to multiple devices leading to oops.
> >>
> >> I'm confused. Tejun, Greg, anyone can probes happen in parallel?
> >>
> >> If so, I'll have to review all my drivers.
> >
> > Unless async is explicitly used, probe happens sequentially. IOW, if
> > there's no async_schedule() call, things won't happen in parallel.
> > That said, I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to protect ida with
> > spinlock regardless unless the probe code explicitly requires
> > serialization.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> Since virtio blk driver doesn't use async probe, it needn't use spinlock to protect ida.
> So remove the lock from patch.
>
> >From fbb396df9dbf8023f1b268be01b43529a3993d57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 06:34:07 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] [virt] virtio-blk: Use ida to allocate disk index
>
> Current index allocation in virtio-blk is based on a monotonically
> increasing variable "index". It could cause some confusion about disk
> name in the case of hot-plugging disks. And it's impossible to find the
> lowest available index by just maintaining a simple index. So it's
> changed to use ida to allocate index via referring to the index
> allocation in scsi disk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
This got lost in the noise and missed 3.1 which is unfortunate.
How about we apply this as is and look at cleanups as a next step?
> ---
> drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> index 079c088..bf81ab6 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> @@ -8,10 +8,13 @@
> #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
> #include <linux/string_helpers.h>
> #include <scsi/scsi_cmnd.h>
> +#include <linux/idr.h>
>
> #define PART_BITS 4
>
> -static int major, index;
> +static int major;
> +static DEFINE_IDA(vd_index_ida);
> +
> struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq;
>
> struct virtio_blk
> @@ -23,6 +26,7 @@ struct virtio_blk
>
> /* The disk structure for the kernel. */
> struct gendisk *disk;
> + u32 index;
>
> /* Request tracking. */
> struct list_head reqs;
> @@ -343,12 +347,23 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> struct request_queue *q;
> int err;
> u64 cap;
> - u32 v, blk_size, sg_elems, opt_io_size;
> + u32 v, blk_size, sg_elems, opt_io_size, index;
> u16 min_io_size;
> u8 physical_block_exp, alignment_offset;
>
> - if (index_to_minor(index) >= 1 << MINORBITS)
> - return -ENOSPC;
> + do {
> + if (!ida_pre_get(&vd_index_ida, GFP_KERNEL))
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + err = ida_get_new(&vd_index_ida, &index);
> + } while (err == -EAGAIN);
> +
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (index_to_minor(index) >= 1 << MINORBITS) {
> + err = -ENOSPC;
> + goto out_free_index;
> + }
>
> /* We need to know how many segments before we allocate. */
> err = virtio_config_val(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX,
> @@ -421,7 +436,7 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> vblk->disk->private_data = vblk;
> vblk->disk->fops = &virtblk_fops;
> vblk->disk->driverfs_dev = &vdev->dev;
> - index++;
> + vblk->index = index;
>
> /* configure queue flush support */
> if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH))
> @@ -516,6 +531,8 @@ out_free_vq:
> vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
> out_free_vblk:
> kfree(vblk);
> +out_free_index:
> + ida_remove(&vd_index_ida, index);
> out:
> return err;
> }
> @@ -538,6 +555,7 @@ static void __devexit virtblk_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> mempool_destroy(vblk->pool);
> vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
> kfree(vblk);
> + ida_remove(&vd_index_ida, vblk->index);
> }
>
> static const struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = {
> --
> 1.7.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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