linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bitmap-for-next 1/5] blk_mq: Fix cpumask_check() warning in blk_mq_hctx_next

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: <Yzshzw6hKhbtdxSd@yury-laptop>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:54:23 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bitmap-for-next 1/5] blk_mq: Fix cpumask_check() warning
 in blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu()

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 04:34:16PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> A recent commit made cpumask_next*() trigger a warning when passed
> n = nr_cpu_ids - 1. This means extra care must be taken when feeding CPU
> numbers back into cpumask_next*().
> 
> The warning occurs nearly every boot on QEMU:

[...]
 
> Fixes: 78e5a3399421 ("cpumask: fix checking valid cpu range")

No! It fixes blk-mq bug, which has been revealed after 78e5a3399421.

> Suggested-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>

OK, maybe I suggested something like this. But after looking into the code
of blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu() code for more, I have a feeling that this should
be overridden deeper. 

Can you check - did this warning raise because hctx->next_cpu, or
because cpumask_next_and() was called twice after jumping on
select_cpu label?

> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-mq.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index c96c8c4f751b..30ae51eda95e 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -2046,8 +2046,13 @@ static int blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>  
>  	if (--hctx->next_cpu_batch <= 0) {
>  select_cpu:

Because we have backward looking goto, I have a strong feeling that the
code should be reorganized.

> -		next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(next_cpu, hctx->cpumask,
> -				cpu_online_mask);
> +		if (next_cpu == nr_cpu_ids - 1)
> +			next_cpu = nr_cpu_ids;
> +		else
> +			next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(next_cpu,
> +						    hctx->cpumask,
> +						    cpu_online_mask);
> +
>  		if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
>  			next_cpu = blk_mq_first_mapped_cpu(hctx);

This simply means 'let's start from the beginning', and should be
replaced with cpumask_next_and_wrap().

>  		hctx->next_cpu_batch = BLK_MQ_CPU_WORK_BATCH;


Maybe something like this would work?

        if (--hctx->next_cpu_batch > 0 && cpu_online(next_cpu)) {
                hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
                return next_cpu;
        }

        next_cpu = cpumask_next_and_wrap(next_cpu, hctx->cpumask, cpu_online_mask)
        if (next_cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
                hctx->next_cpu_batch = BLK_MQ_CPU_WORK_BATCH;
                hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
                return next_cpu;
        }

        /*
         * Make sure to re-select CPU next time once after CPUs
         * in hctx->cpumask become online again.
         */
        hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
        hctx->next_cpu_batch = 1;
        return WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;

I didn't test it and likely screwed some corner case. I'm just
trying to say that picking next cpu should be an easier thing.

Thanks,
Yury