Message-ID: <5661C742.8020604@fb.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:02:58 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
CC:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, <emilne@...hat.com>,
	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>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:1096!

On 12/04/2015 09:59 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:01:47 +0100,
> Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>
>> On 11/25/2015 07:01 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25 2015 at  4:04am -0500,
>>> Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de> 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.
>>>
>>> How did you arrive at that?  Do you have a reproducer now?
>>>
>> Not a reproducer, but several dumps for analysis.
>>
>>>> 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,
>>>
>>> NOMERGE is always set in __blk_rq_prep_clone() for cloned requests.
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> which is evaluated via
>>>> ->dm_dispatch_request()
>>>>     ->blk_insert_cloned_request()
>>>>       ->blk_rq_check_limits()
>>>
>>> blk_insert_cloned_request() is the only caller of blk_rq_check_limits();
>>> anyway after reading your mail I'm still left wondering if your proposed
>>> patch is correct.
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> You're not explaining the actual change in the patch very well; I think
>>> you're correct but you're leaving the justification as an exercise to
>>> the reviewer:
>>>
>>> blk_rq_check_limits() will call blk_recalc_rq_segments() after the
>>> !rq_mergeable() check but you're saying for this case in question we
>>> never get there -- due to the cloned request having NOMERGE set.
>>>
>>> So in blk_rq_check_limits() you've unrolled rq_mergeable() and
>>> open-coded the lone remaining check (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
>>>
>>> I agree that the (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOMERGE_FLAGS) check in
>>> the blk_insert_cloned_request() call-chain (via rq_mergeable()) makes no
>>> sense for cloned requests that always have NOMERGE set.
>>>
>>> So you're saying that by having blk_rq_check_limits() go on to call
>>> blk_recalc_rq_segments() this bug will be fixed?
>>>
>> That is the idea.
>>
>> I've already established that in all instances I have seen so far
>> req->nr_phys_segments is _less_ than req->bio->bi_phys_segments.
>>
>> As it turns out, req->nr_phys_segemnts _would_ have been updated in
>> blk_rq_check_limits(), but isn't due to the NOMERGE flag being set
>> for the cloned request.
>> So each cloned request inherits the values from the original request,
>> despite the fact that req->nr_phys_segments _has_ to be evaluated in
>> the final request_queue context, as the queue limits _might_ be
>> different from the original (merged) queue limits of the multipath
>> request queue.
>>
>>> BTW, I think blk_rq_check_limits()'s export should be removed and the
>>> function made static and renamed to blk_clone_rq_check_limits(), again:
>>> blk_insert_cloned_request() is the only caller of blk_rq_check_limits()
>>>
>> Actually, seeing Jens' last comment the check for REQ_TYPE_FS is
>> pointless, too, so we might as well remove the entire if-clause.
>>
>>> Seems prudent to make that change now to be clear that this code is only
>>> used by cloned requests.
>>>
>> Yeah, that would make sense. I'll be preparing a patch.
>> With a more detailed description :-)
>
> Do we have already a fix?  Right now I got (likely) this kernel BUG()
> on the almost latest Linus tree (commit 25364a9e54fb8296).  It
> happened while I started a KVM right after a fresh boot.  The machine
> paniced even before that, so I hit this twice today.

Update to the tree as-of yesterday (or today) and it should work. 
25364a9e54fb8296 doesn't include the latest block fixes that were sent 
in yesterday, that should fix it. You need commit a88d32af18b8 or newer.

-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists