linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] block: fix bio merge checks when virt

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: <CACVXFVO37O2Yp60E82U_YWCe2yUqsEn1ojMb6kpTDmhBk94dQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:07:19 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] block: fix bio merge checks when virt_boundary is set

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:20:28PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> writes:
>>> > been combined. In any case, I think you can get what you're after just
>>> > by moving the gap check after BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGABLE. Does the following
>>> > look ok to you?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thanks, it does.
>>
>> Cool, thanks for confirming.
>>
>>> Will you send it or would you like me to do that with your Suggested-by?
>>
>> I'm not confident yet this doesn't break anything, particularly since
>> we moved the gap check after the length check. Just wanted to confirm
>> the concept addressed your concern, but still need to take a closer look
>> and test before submitting.
>
> IMO, the change on blk_bio_segment_split() is correct, because actually it
> is a sg gap and the check should have been done between segments
> instead of bvecs. So it is reasonable to move the check just before populating
> a new segment.

Thinking of the 1st part change further, looks it is just correct in concept,
but wrong from current implementation. Because of bios/reqs merge,
blk_rq_map_sg() may end one segment in any bvec in theroy, so I guess
that is why each non-1st bvec need the check to make sure no sg gap.
Looks a very crazy limit, :-)

>
> But for the 2nd change in bio_will_gap(), which should fix Vitaly's problem, I
> am still not sure if it is completely correct. bio_will_gap() is used
> to check if two
> bios may be merged. Suppose two bios are continues physically, the last bvec
> in 1st bio and the first bvec in 2nd bio might not be in one same segment
> because of segment size limit.

How about the attached patch?


>
> The root cause might be from blkdev_writepage(), and I guess these small
> bios are from there.
>
> thanks,
> Ming Lei



-- 
Ming Lei

View attachment "0001-block-loose-check-on-sg-gap.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2257 bytes)