linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Fix the queue freezing mechanism

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: <20150924174938.GC25415@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:49:38 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Fix the queue freezing mechanism

Hello, Bart.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:35:41AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> My interpretation of the percpu_ref_tryget_live() implementation in
> <linux/percpu-refcount.h> is that the tryget operation will only fail if the
> refcount is in atomic mode and additionally the __PERCPU_REF_DEAD flag has
> been set.

Yeah and percpu_ref_kill() does both.

> >Also, what does the barriers do in your patch?
> 
> My intention was to guarantee that on architectures that do not provide the
> same ordering guarantees as x86 (e.g. PPC or ARM) that the store and load
> operations on mq_freeze_depth and mq_usage_counter would not be reordered.
> However, it is probably safe to leave out the barrier I proposed to
> introduce in blk_mq_queue_enter() since it is acceptable that there is some
> delay in communicating mq_freeze_depth updates from the CPU that modified
> that counter to the CPU that reads that counter.

Hmmm... please don't use barriers this way.  Use it only when there's
a clear requirement for interlocking writer and reader pair.  There
isn't one here.  All it does is confusing people trying to read the
code.

> >The only race condition that I can see there is if unfreeze and freeze
> >race each other and freeze tries to kill the ref which hasn't finished
> >reinit yet.  We prolly want to put mutexes around freeze/unfreeze so
> >that they're serialized if something like that can happen (it isn't a
> >hot path to begin with).
> 
> My concern is that the following could happen if mq_freeze_depth is not
> checked in the hot path of blk_mq_queue_enter():
> * mq_usage_counter >= 1 before blk_mq_freeze_queue() is called.
> * blk_mq_freeze_queue() keeps waiting forever if new requests are queued
>   faster than that these requests complete.

Again, that doesn't happen.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/