linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Properly init bios from blk_mq_alloc_request

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: <399a2c2d-0b56-e4e7-c309-a6b9537d8939@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:32:28 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC:     <axboe@...nel.dk>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <hch@....de>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Properly init bios from
 blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()

On 25/10/2022 10:16, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> I mentioned before that if no hctx->cpumask is online then we don't need
>>>> to allocate a request. That is because if no hctx->cpumask is online,
>>>> this means that original erroneous IO must be completed due to nature of
>>>> how blk-mq cpu hotplug handler works, i.e. drained, and then we don't
>>>> actually need to abort it any longer, so ok to not get a request.
>>> No, it is really not OK, if all cpus in hctx->cpumask are offline, you
>>> can't allocate
>>> request on the specified hw queue, then the erroneous IO can't be handled,
>>> then cpu hotplug handler may hang for ever.
>> If the erroneous IO is still in-flight from blk-mq perspective, then how can
>> hctx->cpumask still be offline? I thought that we guarantee that
>> hctx->cpumask cannot go offline until drained.
> Yeah, the draining is done before the cpu is offline. But the drain is
> simply waiting for the inflight IO to be completed. If the IO is failed
> during the waiting, you can't allocate such reserved request for error
> handling, then hang ever in blk_mq_hctx_notify_offline().

Actually if final cpu in hctx->cpumask is going offline, then hctx won't 
queue any more requests, right? In this case I don't think we can queue 
on that hctx anyway. I need to think about this more.

> 
> If you just make it one driver private command, there can't be such
> issue. 

Well we're trying to use reserved requests for EH commands, which that 
goes against.

> Block layer is supposed for handling common case(normal io and pt io),
> I'd suggest to not put such special cases into block layer.

It also supports reserved commands, which I would assume would be 
suitable for EH scenarios.

Thanks,
John