All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Locking scheme of /proc/scsi/scsi
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:59:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ECB6477.4050703@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201111211832.35865.ptesarik@suse.cz>

On 11/21/2011 06:32 PM, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I've been working on a kernel crash dump of an ancient kernel recently, and I 
> have come to the conculsion that walking the scsi devices via 
> bus_find_device() is completely flawed. While looking for an upstream fix, I 
> didn't find any, so the same flaw is probably still there. However, let me ask 
> here to check how this is supposed to work.
> 
> First, this is how I understand the issue. The "/proc/scsi/scsi" file is 
> handled as a pretty standard seqfile, iterating over the devices with the 
> following function:
> 
> static inline struct device *next_scsi_device(struct device *start)
> {
> 	struct device *next = bus_find_device(&scsi_bus_type, start, NULL,
> 					      always_match);
> 	put_device(start);
> 	return next;
> }
> 
> The returned value is used for the next iteration. Now, bus_find_device() 
> assumes that the device is still attached to the knode_bus klist, because 
> that's how it initializes the klist iterator. When it finds the next device, 
> it increments the reference count on the device with get_device(), but it 
> doesn't do anything about the knode_bus field. So, when somebody calls 
> scsi_remove_device() on the current device between two calls to 
> next_scsi_device, then it does:
> 
> 	if (sdev->is_visible) {
> [...]
> 		device_del(dev);
> 
> which in turn calls:
> 
> 	bus_remove_device(dev);
> 
> which does:
> 
> 		if (klist_node_attached(&dev->p->knode_bus))
> 			klist_del(&dev->p->knode_bus);
> 
> So, even though the struct device has a non-zero refcount, the code in 
> next_scsi_device cannot continue, because it only has a stale pointer to an 
> already detached klist, right?
> 
> At least that's what I saw in 2.6.16, and I can still see the same thing 
> possible in 3.1.
> 
Hmm. Looks like we need to increase the refcount to knode_bus when
we iterate devices.
Let me check ...

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-22  8:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-21 17:32 Locking scheme of /proc/scsi/scsi Petr Tesarik
2011-11-22  8:59 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2011-11-22  9:16   ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-22 10:57     ` Petr Tesarik

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=4ECB6477.4050703@suse.de \
    --to=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ptesarik@suse.cz \
    /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.