linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] block/rq_qos: use a global mutex to protect rq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5633d865-8a8a-ef34-82e6-a2eacf943253@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2023 14:37:45 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     hch@...radead.org, josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
        yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/4] block/rq_qos: use a global mutex to protect
 rq_qos apis

Hi,

在 2023/01/09 9:38, Yu Kuai 写道:
>> So, it's not sysfs_lock but sysfs file deletion. When a kernfs, which 
>> backs
>> sysfs, file is removed, it disables future operations and drains all
>> inflight ones before returning, so you remove the interface files before
>> cleaning up the object that it interacts with, you don't have to worry 
>> about
>> racing against file operations as none can be in flight at that point.
> 

I understand this know, kernfs_fop_write_iter() will grab
kernfs_node->active, and kobject_del() will wait for active to be
dropped in kernfs_drain().

>> Sorry that I've been asking you to go round and round but block device
>> add/remove paths have always been really tricky and we wanna avoid adding
>> more complications if at all possible. Can you see why the device is 
>> being
>> destroyed before the queue attr is removed?
> 

Sorry that I actually tested with patch 4 applied, and this is a bug
introduced by patch 4, my apologies. It set rqos to ERR_PTR() in
rq_qos_exit, and follow up rq_qos_issue() just check if rqos is NULL.

I'll wait for your patchset to be apllied, and then send a new version.
Just one thing to confirm, do you think it's better to use a global
mutex rather than a disk level mutex? I'm not sure because this will
cause different cgroup configurations from different disk can't
concurrent.

Thanks,
Kuai