linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi: fix oops in scsi_uninit

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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 07:18:36 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hare@...e.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, jthumshirn@...e.de,
        Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi: fix oops in scsi_uninit_cmd()

[fullquote removed, please follow proper mail etiquette]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:56:28AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> regression in the SCSI sd driver due to the switch from the legacy block
> layer to scsi-mq. The above patch introduces two atomic operations in the
> hot path and hence would introduce a performance regression. I think this
> can be avoided by making sure that sd_uninit_command() gets called before
> the request tag is freed. What changes would be required to make the block
> layer core call sd_uninit_command() before the request tag is freed? Would
> introducing prep_rq_fn and unprep_rq_fn callbacks in struct blk_mq_ops and
> making sure that the SCSI core sets these callback function pointers
> appropriately be sufficient? Would such a change allow to simplify the NVMe
> initiator driver? Are there any alternatives to this approach that are more
> elegant?

Additional indirect calls in the I/O fast path is something I'd rather
avoid.  But I don't fully understand the problem yet - where do
we release a disk reference from blk_update_request?  And why can't
we move that release to __blk_mq_end_request?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
---end quoted text---