linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: mq flush: fix race between IPI handler and mq flush worker

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]

Date:	Wed, 21 May 2014 07:36:34 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: mq flush: fix race between IPI handler and mq
	flush worker

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:16:14PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> I am wondering if virtio-blk is trivial block driver, :-)

It's about as simple as it gets.

> > The scsi-mq work that I plant to submit for the next merge window is
> > the prime example.
> 
> It depends if one scsi-mq req has to requeue itself with rq->requeue_work
> inside its own .softirq_done_fn. If yes, we can't put call_single_data
> and requeue_work into one union simply. From you last scsi-mq post,
> looks the request may do that if I understand correctly.

Requeueing a request from the completion handler is indeed what we'll
need with various more complete drivers.

> I think the patch is clean and simple, with documenting the special
> conflict case clearly too.

While I can't say anything against the fact that it fixes the issue
it's neither clean nor simple.

> Follows current ideas:
> 1), this patch with scsi-mq sharing abort_work together?
> 2), move requeue_work out of the union inside request
> 3), spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock) everywhere and requeue
> request directly to ctx without using work

I think Jens very much wanted to avoid irq disabling in the I/O path
if possible. If we have a separate requeue list with it's separate
lock we can avoid that unless we actually have to take requests of
that requeue list.  I can look into that implementation.

--
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/