From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a use-after-free triggered by device removal
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:53:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120913165340.GX7677@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50518AC3.2070009@acm.org>
Hello, Bart.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 09/12/12 22:53, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > The problem at hand IIUC is ->request_fn() being invoked when
> > request_queue itself is alive but the underlying driver is gone. We
> > already make sure that a new request is not queued once drain is
> > complete but there's no guarantee about calling into ->request_fn()
> > and this is what you want to fix, right?
>
> Actually it's a slightly different issue that I want to address, namely
> that with the current implementation of the block layer and the SCSI
> core it's possible that blk_cleanup_queue() finishes after
> scsi_request_fn() has unlocked the queue lock and before it obtains the
> queue lock again.
>
> The reason I'm proposing to add a counter in the block layer and not in
> the SCSI core is because I think it would be useful for other
> request-based block drivers too to be able to unlock the queue inside
> their ->request_fn(). That would allow to reduce lock contention on the
> request_queue lock for low-latency block drivers.
Oh yeah, I definitely think this is something which needs to be solved
from the block layer but I'm hoping this could cover the case Chanho
is trying to solve too. They're different but similar problems - you
don't want blk_cleanup_queue() to finish while someone is executing
inside it and you don't want anyone to enter it after
blk_cleanup_queue() is finished, so I really think we should have
block layer solution which fixes both problems. That should be
possible, right?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-13 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-03 14:12 [PATCH] Fix a use-after-free triggered by device removal Bart Van Assche
2012-09-06 16:27 ` Michael Christie
2012-09-06 17:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-09-06 18:14 ` Mike Christie
2012-09-06 18:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-09-06 23:20 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-07 6:57 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-09-10 23:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-11 6:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-09-12 20:53 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-13 7:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-09-13 16:53 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-09-13 18:27 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-09-13 19:25 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120913165340.GX7677@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=chanho.min@lge.com \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.