linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "md: raid1: use bio helper in process

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: <CAK8P3a0NfY56C_L+ds2VOXFtdT--WrZ=CoMMmd1JTM84KoYs0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:37:46 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc:     Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, "colyli@...e.de" <colyli@...e.de>,
        Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>,
        Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
        "open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
        <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "md: raid1: use bio helper in process_checks()"

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:

>> What I meant is that a future change to the function might cause
>> another bug to go unnoticed later.
>
> What is the future change? And what is another bug? Please don't suppose or
> assume anything in future.
>
> BTW, I don't think it is a problem, and anyone who want to change the code
> much should understand it first, right?

I did not have any specific change in mind, I was just following the
principle from https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=232

I tend to do a lot of fixes for warnings like this, and in general
adding a fake initialization will lead to worse object code while
changing the code to be easier to understand by the compiler
will also make it easier to understand by human readers, lead
to better object code and to being more robust against future
changes that would have otherwise triggered a correct warning.

>>> The following code does initialize the array well enough for future use:
>>>
>>>                bio_for_each_segment_all(bi, sbio, j)
>>>                        page_len[j] = bi->bv_len;
>>>
>>> That is why we don't need to initialize the array explicitly, but just
>>> for killing the warning.
>>
>> It's also a little less clear why that is safe than the original code:
>> We rely on sbio->bi_vcnt to be the same as vcnt, but it requires
>
> That is absolutely true because all read bios in process_checks()
> have same vector number, do you think it will be changed in future?

No, I have no reason to assume it would be changed.

> And what we really rely on is that RESYNC_PAGES is equal to or bigger
> than the vector number, and that is what we can guarantee.
>
>> careful reading of the function to see that this is always true.
>> gcc warns because it cannot prove this to be the case, so if
>> something changed here, it's likely that this would also not
>> get noticed.
>
> The compiler can't understand runtime behaviour, and
> we try to let gcc check more, but that is just fine if gcc can't.
>
> One big purpose of this patch is to remove direct access to
> bvec table, so it can't be reverted, or do you have better idea?

>From what I can tell, the following walk of the pages does not
have to be done in reverse, so we can perhaps use a single
bio_for_each_segment_all() (only for illustration, haven't
thought this through completely) :

diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
index 4d176c8abc33..e4bcc7cec8da 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
@@ -2157,25 +2157,30 @@ static void process_checks(struct r1bio *r1_bio)
                int error = sbio->bi_error;
                struct page **ppages = get_resync_pages(pbio)->pages;
                struct page **spages = get_resync_pages(sbio)->pages;
+               struct bio_vec *bi;
+               int page_len[RESYNC_PAGES];
+

                if (sbio->bi_end_io != end_sync_read)
                        continue;
                /* Now we can 'fixup' the error value */
                sbio->bi_error = 0;

-               if (!error) {
-                       for (j = vcnt; j-- ; ) {
-                               if (memcmp(page_address(ppages[j]),
-                                          page_address(spages[j]),
-                                          sbio->bi_io_vec[j].bv_len))
-                                       break;
-                       }
-               } else
-                       j = 0;
-               if (j >= 0)
+               if (error) {
                        atomic64_add(r1_bio->sectors,
&mddev->resync_mismatches);
-               if (j < 0 || (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK, &mddev->recovery)
-                             && !error)) {
+                       bio_copy_data(sbio, pbio);
+                       continue;
+               }
+
+               bio_for_each_segment_all(bi, sbio, j) {
+                       if (memcmp(page_address(ppages[j]),
+                                  page_address(spages[j]),
+                                          sbio->bi_io_vec[j].bv_len)) {
+                               atomic64_add(r1_bio->sectors,
&mddev->resync_mismatches);
+                               break;
+                       }
+               }
+               if (j == vcnt || (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK,
&mddev->recovery))) {
                        /* No need to write to this device. */
                        sbio->bi_end_io = NULL;
                        rdev_dec_pending(conf->mirrors[i].rdev, mddev);