linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs

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: <CACVXFVO5oW_u0chDki4eRBDcA+-WAi=8kJLtEkE0cQNunk=4qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:51:02 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net>,
	Sebastian Roesner <sroesner-kernelorg@...sner-online.de>,
	"4.2+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:20:59AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Kent Overstreet
>> <kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:59:31AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Kent Overstreet
>> >> <kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:44:06AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> >> After arbitrary bio size is supported, the incoming bio may
>> >> >> be very big. We have to split the bio into small bios so that
>> >> >> each holds at most BIO_MAX_PAGES bvecs for safety reason, such
>> >> >> as bio_clone().
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This patch fixes the following kernel crash:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ming, let's not do it this way; drivers that don't clone biovecs are the norm -
>> >> > instead, md has its own queue limits that it ought to be setting up correctly.
>> >>
>> >> Except for md, there are also several usages of bio_clone:
>> >>
>> >>          - drbd
>> >>          - osdblk
>> >>          - pktcdvd
>> >>          - xen-blkfront
>> >>          - verify code of bcache
>> >>
>> >> I don't like bio_clone() too, which can cause trouble to multipage bvecs.
>> >>
>> >> How about fixing the issue by this simple patch first? Then once we limits
>> >> all above queues by max sectors, the global limit can be removed as
>> >> mentioned by the comment.
>> >
>> > just do this:
>> >
>> > void blk_set_limit_clonable(struct queue_limits *lim)
>> > {
>> >         lim->max_segments = min(lim->max_segments, BIO_MAX_PAGES);
>> > }
>>
>> As I memtioned it is __not__ correct to use max_segments, and the issue is
>> related with max sectors, please see the code of bio_clone_bioset():
>
> I know how bio_clone_bioset() works but I'm not seeing how that has anything to
> do with max sectors. The way it copies the biovec is not going to merge
> segments, if the original bio had non full page segments then so is the clone.

OK, I see, now it is a totally new limit, and no current queue limit can fit
the purpose.

Looks we need to introduce the new limit of io_max_vecs, which can be
applied into blk_bio_segment_split().

But a queue flag should be better than queue limit since it is a 'limit' from
software/driver.

>
>>       bio = bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_mask, bio_segments(bio_src), bs);
>>
>> bio_segments() returns pages actually.
>>
>> >
>> > and then call that from the appropriate drivers. It should be like 20 minutes of
>> > work.
>> >
>> > My issue is that your approach of just enforcing a global limit is a step in the
>> > wrong direction - we want to get _away_ from that and move towards drivers
>> > specifying _directly_ what their limits are: more straightforward, less opaque.
>> >
>> > Also, your patch is wrong, as it'll break if there's bvecs that aren't full
>> > pages.
>>
>> I don't understand why my patch is wrong, since we can split anywhere
>> in a bio, could you explain it a bit?
>
> If you have a bio that has > BIO_MAX_PAGES segments, but all the segments are a
> single sector (not a full page!) - then think about what'll happen...
>
> It can happen with userspace issuing direct IOs

Yeah, I will cook a patch for review.

Thanks,
Ming