linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi

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: <56560ADF.9060905@fb.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:24:15 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, <emilne@...hat.com>
CC:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	"James E. J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...n.com>,
	brking <brking@...ibm.com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:1096!

On 11/25/2015 12:10 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 06:56 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/25/2015 02:04 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2015 04:28 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 15:55 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>>> Can't we have a joint effort here?
>>>>> I've been spending a _LOT_ of time trying to debug things here, but
>>>>> none of the ideas I've come up with have been able to fix anything.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  I'm not the one primarily looking at it, and we don't have a
>>>> reproducer in-house.  We just have the one dump right now.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm almost tempted to increase the count from scsi_alloc_sgtable()
>>>>> by one and be done with ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That might not fix it if it is a problem with the merge code, though.
>>>>
>>> And indeed, it doesn't.
>>> Seems I finally found the culprit.
>>>
>>> What happens is this:
>>> We have two paths, with these seg_boundary_masks:
>>>
>>> path-1:    seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
>>> path-2:    seg_boundary_mask = 4294967295,
>>>
>>> consequently the DM request queue has this:
>>>
>>> md-1:    seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
>>>
>>> What happens now is that a request is being formatted, and sent
>>> to path 2. During submission req->nr_phys_segments is formatted
>>> with the limits of path 2, arriving at a count of 3.
>>> Now the request gets retried on path 1, but as the NOMERGE request
>>> flag is set req->nr_phys_segments is never updated.
>>> But blk_rq_map_sg() ignores all counters, and just uses the
>>> bi_vec directly, resulting in a count of 4 -> boom.
>>>
>>> So the culprit here is the NOMERGE flag, which is evaluated
>>> via
>>> ->dm_dispatch_request()
>>>    ->blk_insert_cloned_request()
>>>      ->blk_rq_check_limits()
>>>
>>> If the above assessment is correct, the following patch should
>>> fix it:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>>> index 801ced7..12cccd6 100644
>>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>>> @@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio);
>>>    */
>>>   int blk_rq_check_limits(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
>>>   {
>>> -       if (!rq_mergeable(rq))
>>> +       if (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
>>>                  return 0;
>>>
>>>          if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q,
>>> rq->cmd_flags)) {
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike? Jens?
>>> Can you comment on it?
>>
>> We only support merging on REQ_TYPE_FS already, so how is the above
>> making it any different? In general, NOMERGE being set or not should not
>> make a difference. It's only a hint that we need not check further if we
>> should be merging on this request, since we already tried it once, found
>> we'd exceed various limits, then set NOMERGE to reflect that.
>>
> The problem is that NOMERGE does too much, as it inhibits _any_ merging.

Right, that is the point of the flag from the block layer view, where it 
was originally added for the case mentioned.

> Unfortunately, the req->nr_phys_segments value is evaluated in the final
> _driver_ context _after_ the merging happend; cf
> scsi_lib.c:scsi_init_sgtable().
> As nr_phys_segments is inherited from the original request (and never
> recalculated with the new request queue limits) the following
> blk_rq_map_sg() call might end up at a different calculation, especially
> after retrying a request on another path.

That all sounds pretty horrible. Why is blk_rq_check_limits() checking 
for mergeable at all? If merging is disabled on the request, I'm 
assuming that's an attempt at an optimization since we know it won't 
change. But that should be tracked separately, like how it's done on the 
bio.


-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/