[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6DP3aOSad8+D1yY@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 10:55:57 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: hch@...radead.org, josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com,
yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/4] blk-cgroup: synchronize del_gendisk() with
configuring cgroup policy
Hello,
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 11:09:04AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> iocost is initialized when it's configured the first time, and iocost
> initializing can race with del_gendisk(), which will cause null pointer
> dereference:
>
> t1 t2
> ioc_qos_write
> blk_iocost_init
> rq_qos_add
> del_gendisk
> rq_qos_exit
> //iocost is removed from q->roqs
> blkcg_activate_policy
> pd_init_fn
> ioc_pd_init
> ioc = q_to_ioc(blkg->q)
> //can't find iocost and return null
>
> And iolatency is about to switch to the same lazy initialization.
>
> This patchset fix this problem by synchronize rq_qos_add() and
> blkcg_activate_policy() with rq_qos_exit().
So, the patchset seems a bit overly complicated to me. What do you think
about the following?
* These init/exit paths are super cold path, just protecting them with a
global mutex is probably enough. If we encounter a scalability problem,
it's easy to fix down the line.
* If we're synchronizing this with a mutex anyway, no need to grab the
queue_lock, right? rq_qos_add/del/exit() can all just hold the mutex.
* And we can keep the state tracking within rq_qos. When rq_qos_exit() is
called, mark it so that future adds will fail - be that a special ->next
value a queue flag or whatever.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists