linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support

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: <20120904133543.GF9805@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:35:43 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, jasowang@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 01:18:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 04/09/2012 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >> >     queuecommand on CPU #0         queuecommand #2 on CPU #1
> >> >   --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >     atomic_inc_return(...) == 1
> >> >                                    atomic_inc_return(...) == 2
> >> >                                    virtscsi_queuecommand to queue #1
> >> >     tgt->req_vq = queue #0
> >> >     virtscsi_queuecommand to queue #0
> >> > 
> >> > then two requests are issued to different queues without a quiescent
> >> > point in the middle.
> > What happens then? Does this break correctness?
> 
> Yes, requests to the same target should be processed in FIFO order, or
> you have things like a flush issued before the write it was supposed to
> flush.  This is why I can only change the queue when there is no request
> pending.
> 
> Paolo

I see.  I guess you can rewrite this as:
atomic_inc
if (atomic_read() == 1)
which is a bit cheaper, and make the fact
that you do not need increment and return to be atomic,
explicit.

Another simple idea: store last processor id in target,
if it is unchanged no need to play with req_vq
and take spinlock.

Also - some kind of comment explaining why a similar race can not happen
with this lock in place would be nice: I see why this specific race can
not trigger but since lock is dropped later before you submit command, I
have hard time convincing myself what exactly gurantees that vq is never
switched before or even while command is submitted.




-- 
MST
--
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/