linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] block: fix blk_queue

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: <CACVXFVNTKsRQ0PQTL47-ceP-KqMR-zR4DO1v-ey5NTUYv8bUog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:47:29 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
Cc:	linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@...bit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"open list:DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM)" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BCACHE (BLOCK LAYER CACHE)" <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
	<linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Lars Ellenberg
<lars.ellenberg@...bit.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 06:28:29PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> The idea looks good, but not sure it can cover all cases of
>> dm over brbd or brbd over dm and maintaining two lists
>> becomes too complicated.
>>
>> One clean solution may be to convert the loop of generic_make_request()
>> into the following way:
>>
>> do {
>>     struct bio *splitted, *remainder = NULL;
>>     struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bio->bi_bdev);
>>
>>     blk_queue_split(q, &bio, &remainder, q->bio_split);
>>
>>     ret = q->make_request_fn(q, bio);
>>
>>     if (remainder)
>>          bio_list_add(current->bio_list, remainder);
>>     bio = bio_list_pop(current->bio_list);
>> } while (bio)
>
> Not good enough.
>
> Consider DRBD on device-mapper on device-mapper on scsi,
> or insert multipath and / or md raid into the stack.
> The iterative call to q->make_request_fn() in the second iteration
> may queue bios after the remainder.

But this remainder is not the top remainder any more, I guess you mean
the following situation:

- drbd_make_request(bio)
       ->generic_make_request(bio)
              ->bio is added into current->bio_list
- bio is splitted as bio_a and bio_b in generic_make_request()
- dm_make_request(bio_a)
        ->generic_make_request(bio_a)
               ->bio_a is add into current_list
- bio_a is splitted as bio_a_a and bio_a_b in generic_make_request()
- dm_make_request(bio_a_a)
      ->.....
- bio_a_b is added into current->bio_list
- dm_make_request(bio_a_b)

But it is correct because bio_a depends on both bio_a_a and bio_a_b.
Or I understand you wrong?

>
> Goal was to first process all "deeper level" bios
> before processing the remainder.

For the reported bio splitting issue, I think the goal is to make sure all
BIOs generated from 'bio' inside .make_request_fn(bio) are queued
before the 'current' remainder. Cause it is the issue introduced by
blk_split_bio().

Thanks,
Ming

>
> You can achieve this by doing last-in-first-out on bio_list,
> or by using two lists, as I suggested in the original post.
>
>     Lars
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html