linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] 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: <CACVXFVMDod01eDYxvd8_LXmXaNusz2gsQRywdNgi=Z+nJzzjTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2016 17:31:33 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:     Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Roesner <sroesner-kernelorg@...sner-online.de>,
        "4.3+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:23:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:11:22PM +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().
>> >
>> > I still think working around a rough driver submitting too large
>> > I/O is a bad thing until we've done a full audit of all consuming
>> > bios through ->make_request, and we've enabled it for the common
>> > path as well.
>>
>> bcache originally had workaround code to split too-large bios when it
>> first went upstream - that was dropped only after the patches to make
>> generic_make_request() handle arbitrary size bios went in. So to do what
>> you're suggesting would mean reverting that bcache patch and bringing
>> that code back, which from my perspective would be a step in the wrong
>> direction. I just want to get this over and done with.
>>
>> >
>> > >   bool do_split = true;
>> > >   struct bio *new = NULL;
>> > >   const unsigned max_sectors = get_max_io_size(q, bio);
>> > > + unsigned bvecs = 0;
>> > > +
>> > > + *no_merge = true;
>> > >
>> > >   bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, iter) {
>> > >           /*
>> > > +          * With arbitrary bio size, 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 because
>> > > +          * bio_clone() can fail to allocate big bvecs.
>> > > +          *
>> > > +          * It should have been better to apply the limit per
>> > > +          * request queue in which bio_clone() is involved,
>> > > +          * instead of globally. The biggest blocker is
>> > > +          * bio_clone() in bio bounce.
>> > > +          *
>> > > +          * If bio is splitted by this reason, we should allow
>> > > +          * to continue bios merging.
>> > > +          *
>> > > +          * TODO: deal with bio bounce's bio_clone() gracefully
>> > > +          * and convert the global limit into per-queue limit.
>> > > +          */
>> > > +         if (bvecs++ >= BIO_MAX_PAGES) {
>> > > +                 *no_merge = false;
>> > > +                 goto split;
>> > > +         }
>> >
>> > That being said this simple if check here is simple enough that it's
>> > probably fine.  But I see no need to uglify the whole code path
>> > with that no_merge flag.  Please drop if for now, and if we start
>> > caring for this path in common code we should just move the
>> > REQ_NOMERGE setting into the actual blk_bio_*_split helpers.
>>
>> Agreed about the no_merge thing.
>
> By removing `no_merge` this patch should cherry-peck into stable v4.3+
> without merge issues by avoiding bi_rw refactor interference, too.
>
> Ming, can you send out a V4 without `no_merge` ?

This patch is definitely correct, and I don't see dealing with 'no_merge'
should be removed.

In this case, the bio is still possible to merge with others because
it doesn't violate any limit of the queue because it just can't be held in
256 bvecs, that means it is correct to clear no_merge for this situation.

Also I don't think it is complicated or ugly to deal with the flag.

Jens, could you merge this fix?

Thanks,
Ming

>
> --
> Eric Wheeler
>
>
>
> --
> 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