| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <3D6BB557-E9D1-4421-A541-CA2BF742506C@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:27:45 +0800
From: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>,
"open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] block: fix ordering between checking
QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCED and adding requests
> On Sep 11, 2024, at 11:54, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 07:22:16AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/3/24 2:16 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
>>> Supposing the following scenario.
>>>
>>> CPU0 CPU1
>>>
>>> blk_mq_insert_request() 1) store blk_mq_unquiesce_queue()
>>> blk_mq_run_hw_queue() blk_queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCED) 3) store
>>> if (blk_queue_quiesced()) 2) load blk_mq_run_hw_queues()
>>> return blk_mq_run_hw_queue()
>>> blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests() if (!blk_mq_hctx_has_pending()) 4) load
>>> return
>>>
>>> The full memory barrier should be inserted between 1) and 2), as well as
>>> between 3) and 4) to make sure that either CPU0 sees QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCED is
>>> cleared or CPU1 sees dispatch list or setting of bitmap of software queue.
>>> Otherwise, either CPU will not re-run the hardware queue causing starvation.
>>>
>>> So the first solution is to 1) add a pair of memory barrier to fix the
>>> problem, another solution is to 2) use hctx->queue->queue_lock to synchronize
>>> QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCED. Here, we chose 2) to fix it since memory barrier is not
>>> easy to be maintained.
>>
>> Same comment here, 72-74 chars wide please.
>>
>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>>> index b2d0f22de0c7f..ac39f2a346a52 100644
>>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>>> @@ -2202,6 +2202,24 @@ void blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, unsigned long msecs)
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue);
>>>
>>> +static inline bool blk_mq_hw_queue_need_run(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>>> +{
>>> + bool need_run;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * When queue is quiesced, we may be switching io scheduler, or
>>> + * updating nr_hw_queues, or other things, and we can't run queue
>>> + * any more, even blk_mq_hctx_has_pending() can't be called safely.
>>> + *
>>> + * And queue will be rerun in blk_mq_unquiesce_queue() if it is
>>> + * quiesced.
>>> + */
>>> + __blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops(hctx->queue, false,
>>> + need_run = !blk_queue_quiesced(hctx->queue) &&
>>> + blk_mq_hctx_has_pending(hctx));
>>> + return need_run;
>>> +}
>>
>> This __blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops() is also way too wide, why didn't you
>> just break it like where you copied it from?
>>
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * blk_mq_run_hw_queue - Start to run a hardware queue.
>>> * @hctx: Pointer to the hardware queue to run.
>>> @@ -2222,20 +2240,23 @@ void blk_mq_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, bool async)
>>>
>>> might_sleep_if(!async && hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING);
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * When queue is quiesced, we may be switching io scheduler, or
>>> - * updating nr_hw_queues, or other things, and we can't run queue
>>> - * any more, even __blk_mq_hctx_has_pending() can't be called safely.
>>> - *
>>> - * And queue will be rerun in blk_mq_unquiesce_queue() if it is
>>> - * quiesced.
>>> - */
>>> - __blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops(hctx->queue, false,
>>> - need_run = !blk_queue_quiesced(hctx->queue) &&
>>> - blk_mq_hctx_has_pending(hctx));
>>> + need_run = blk_mq_hw_queue_need_run(hctx);
>>> + if (!need_run) {
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>
>>> - if (!need_run)
>>> - return;
>>> + /*
>>> + * synchronize with blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(), becuase we check
>>> + * if hw queue is quiesced locklessly above, we need the use
>>> + * ->queue_lock to make sure we see the up-to-date status to
>>> + * not miss rerunning the hw queue.
>>> + */
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&hctx->queue->queue_lock, flags);
>>> + need_run = blk_mq_hw_queue_need_run(hctx);
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hctx->queue->queue_lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> + if (!need_run)
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>
>> Is this not solvable on the unquiesce side instead? It's rather a shame
>> to add overhead to the fast path to avoid a race with something that's
>> super unlikely, like quisce.
>
> Yeah, it can be solved by adding synchronize_rcu()/srcu() in unquiesce
> side, but SCSI may call it in non-sleepable context via scsi_internal_device_unblock_nowait().
Hi Ming and Jens,
I use call_srcu/call_rcu to make it non-sleepable. Does this make sense to you?
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index 12bf38bec1044..86cdff28b2ce6 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -247,6 +247,13 @@ void blk_mq_quiesce_queue(struct request_queue *q)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_quiesce_queue);
+static void blk_mq_run_hw_queues_rcu(struct rcu_head *rh)
+{
+ struct request_queue *q = container_of(rh, struct request_queue,
+ rcu_head);
+ blk_mq_run_hw_queues(q, true);
+}
+
/*
* blk_mq_unquiesce_queue() - counterpart of blk_mq_quiesce_queue()
* @q: request queue.
@@ -269,8 +276,13 @@ void blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(struct request_queue *q)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->queue_lock, flags);
/* dispatch requests which are inserted during quiescing */
- if (run_queue)
- blk_mq_run_hw_queues(q, true);
+ if (run_queue) {
+ if (q->tag_set->flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING)
+ call_srcu(q->tag_set->srcu, &q->rcu_head,
+ blk_mq_run_hw_queues_rcu);
+ else
+ call_rcu(&q->rcu_head, blk_mq_run_hw_queues_rcu);
+ }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_unquiesce_queue);
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists