From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: jens.axboe@oracle.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] block: Don't let blk_put_request leak BIOs
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:27:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49945C0F.8040704@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49942A9E.8090405@panasas.com>
If a block ULD had allocated a request and mapped some memory into it,
but then for some reason failed to execute the request through one of
the blk_execute_request_xxx routines. Then the associated bio would leak,
unless ULD resorts to low-level loops intimate of block internals.
For this to work I have fixed a couple of places in block/ where
request->bio != NULL ownership was not honored. And a small cleanup
at sg_io() while at it.
[RFC]
This code will also catch situations where LLD failed to complete
the request before aborting it. Such situations are a BUG. Should we
use WARN_ON_ONCE() in that case. The situation above is possible and
can happen normally in memory pressure situations so maybe we should
devise a bit-flag that ULD denotes that the request was aborted and
only WARN_ON if flag was not set.
For the duration of linux-next I'm leaving the WARN_ON to catch any
problems like found above, and possible memory leaks. Before submission
a complimentary patch should remove the WARN_ON. (Or this patch can be
rebased)
Please comment on possible pitfalls.
Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
---
block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
block/blk-merge.c | 2 ++
block/scsi_ioctl.c | 21 ++++-----------------
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index a824e49..3c1f920 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -1055,6 +1055,22 @@ void part_round_stats(int cpu, struct hd_struct *part)
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(part_round_stats);
/*
+ * If one of the blk_rq_map_xxx() was called but the request was not
+ * executed by the block layer, then we must release BIOs. Otherwise they
+ * will leak.
+ */
+static void _abort_unexecuted_bios(struct request *req)
+{
+ struct bio *bio;
+
+ WARN_ON(req->bio != NULL);
+ while (unlikely((bio = req->bio) != NULL)) {
+ req->bio = bio->bi_next;
+ bio_endio(bio, 0);
+ }
+}
+
+/*
* queue lock must be held
*/
void __blk_put_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req)
@@ -1066,6 +1082,7 @@ void __blk_put_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req)
elv_completed_request(q, req);
+ _abort_unexecuted_bios(req);
/*
* Request may not have originated from ll_rw_blk. if not,
* it didn't come out of our reserved rq pools
diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
index b92f5b0..463e797 100644
--- a/block/blk-merge.c
+++ b/block/blk-merge.c
@@ -398,6 +398,8 @@ static int attempt_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req,
if (blk_rq_cpu_valid(next))
req->cpu = next->cpu;
+ /* owner-ship of bio passed from next to req */
+ next->bio = NULL;
__blk_put_request(q, next);
return 1;
}
diff --git a/block/scsi_ioctl.c b/block/scsi_ioctl.c
index ee9c67d..626ee27 100644
--- a/block/scsi_ioctl.c
+++ b/block/scsi_ioctl.c
@@ -214,21 +214,10 @@ static int blk_fill_sghdr_rq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
return 0;
}
-/*
- * unmap a request that was previously mapped to this sg_io_hdr. handles
- * both sg and non-sg sg_io_hdr.
- */
-static int blk_unmap_sghdr_rq(struct request *rq, struct sg_io_hdr *hdr)
-{
- blk_rq_unmap_user(rq->bio);
- blk_put_request(rq);
- return 0;
-}
-
static int blk_complete_sghdr_rq(struct request *rq, struct sg_io_hdr *hdr,
struct bio *bio)
{
- int r, ret = 0;
+ int ret = 0;
/*
* fill in all the output members
@@ -253,12 +242,10 @@ static int blk_complete_sghdr_rq(struct request *rq, struct sg_io_hdr *hdr,
ret = -EFAULT;
}
- rq->bio = bio;
- r = blk_unmap_sghdr_rq(rq, hdr);
- if (ret)
- r = ret;
+ blk_rq_unmap_user(bio);
+ blk_put_request(rq);
- return r;
+ return ret;
}
static int sg_io(struct request_queue *q, struct gendisk *bd_disk,
--
1.6.0.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-12 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-13 16:23 [PATCH 0/3] remove scsi_req_map_sg FUJITA Tomonori
2008-12-13 16:23 ` [PATCH 1/3] " FUJITA Tomonori
2008-12-13 16:23 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: unexport blk_rq_append_bio FUJITA Tomonori
2008-12-13 16:23 ` [PATCH 3/3] block: unexport bio_add_pc_page FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-10 17:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: unexport blk_rq_append_bio James Bottomley
2009-02-10 18:19 ` James Bottomley
2009-02-11 0:21 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-11 8:17 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-11 8:19 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-11 9:15 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-11 14:32 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-11 14:52 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-11 15:01 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-11 15:07 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-11 15:21 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-11 15:41 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-11 16:04 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-11 16:30 ` James Bottomley
2009-02-11 17:55 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 1:30 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-12 8:24 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 8:28 ` [RFD] blk_rq_map_pages new API Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 9:19 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 9:50 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-12 10:20 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-12 11:34 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 8:41 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: unexport blk_rq_append_bio FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-12 9:14 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 9:50 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-02-12 12:19 ` [PATCH] [RFC] block: Don't let blk_put_request leak BIOs Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 13:49 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 13:56 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 17:27 ` Boaz Harrosh [this message]
2009-02-12 17:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] libosd: Don't let osd abuse block internals, now that it's fixed Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-12 14:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: unexport blk_rq_append_bio James Bottomley
2009-02-12 16:51 ` Boaz Harrosh
2008-12-15 7:28 ` [PATCH 0/3] remove scsi_req_map_sg Jens Axboe
2008-12-18 8:14 ` FUJITA Tomonori
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=49945C0F.8040704@panasas.com \
--to=bharrosh@panasas.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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.