linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libsas: flush pending destruct work in sas_unregister_domain

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: <CAM_iQpVWmeq5BMvxJmD2FP6Zm6s7O05+NqzYQ6uCAp7iE1asnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:57:58 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Praveen Murali <pmurali@...icube.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
        chenxiang <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libsas: flush pending destruct work in sas_unregister_domain_devices()

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:37 AM, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 17:04, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand, the only caller of sas_unregister_domain_devices()
>> is sas_deform_port().
>>
>
> And sas_deform_port() may be called from another worker on the same queue,
> right? As in sas_phye_loss_of_signal()->sas_deform_port()

Oh, good catch! I didn't notice this subtle call path.

Do you have any better idea to fix this? We saw this on 4.9 too.

>
> The device destruct takes place in a separate worker from which
> sas_deform_port() is called, but the same queue. So we have this queued
> destruct happen after the port is fully deformed -> hence the WARN.
>
> I guess you only tested your patch on disks attached through an expander.

I have very limited scsi hardware, so my testing is limited too.