From: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event()
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:25:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151030162443.GA31413@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47541446213767@webcorp02e.yandex-team.ru>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:02:47PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Isn't the 4.1 fix just:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > index e5befa356dbe..6e4350a78257 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > @@ -3522,16 +3522,16 @@ returnbi:
> > * no updated data, so remove it from hash list and the stripe
> > * will be reinitialized
> > */
> > - spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > unhash:
> > + spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
> > remove_hash(sh);
> > + spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
> > if (head_sh->batch_head) {
> > sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
> > struct stripe_head, batch_list);
> > if (sh != head_sh)
> > goto unhash;
> > }
> > - spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > sh = head_sh;
> >
> > if (test_bit(STRIPE_SYNC_REQUESTED, &sh->state))
> >
> > ??
>
> In my opion, this patch looks correct, although it seems to me, that there is an another issue here.
>
> > if (head_sh->batch_head) {
> > sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
> > struct stripe_head, batch_list);
> > if (sh != head_sh)
> > goto unhash;
> > }
>
> With a patch above this code will be executed without taking any locks. It it correct?
> In my opinion, we need to take at least sh->stripe_lock, which protects sh->batch_head.
> Or do I miss something?
>
> If you want, we can handle this issue separately.
The batch_list list doesn't need the protection. Only the remove_hash() need it.
Thanks,
Shaohua
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-30 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-28 8:52 [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin
2015-10-28 8:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2015-10-29 0:34 ` Neil Brown
2015-10-29 0:34 ` Neil Brown
2015-10-29 14:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2015-10-29 14:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2015-10-29 21:22 ` Greg KH
2015-10-29 21:22 ` Greg KH
2015-10-30 1:35 ` Neil Brown
2015-10-30 1:35 ` Neil Brown
2015-10-30 14:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2015-10-30 16:25 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2015-10-30 22:16 ` Neil Brown
2015-10-30 22:16 ` Neil Brown
2015-10-31 12:25 ` Roman Gushchin
2015-10-31 12:25 ` Roman Gushchin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-11-06 6:41 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event()" failed to apply to 3.14-stable tree gregkh
2015-11-06 9:54 ` [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin
2015-11-11 15:58 ` Luis Henriques
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=20151030162443.GA31413@kernel.org \
--to=shli@kernel.org \
--cc=klamm@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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.