From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Chanho Min <chanho0207@gmail.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] remove the queue unlock in scsi_requset_fn
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:56:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <502F8300.2060307@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502CA6C3.4040903@acm.org>
On 08/16/12 07:52, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 08/16/12 01:35, Chanho Min wrote:
>>> functions will occur in line. I also don't see why the sdev reference
>>> couldn't drop to zero here.
>> scsi_request_fn is called under the lock of request_queue->queue_lock.
>> If we drop the sdev reference to zero here,
>> scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext is
>> invoked and make request_queue to NULL. When caller of scsi_request_fn try to
>> unlock request_queue->queue_lock, the oops is occurred.
>
> Whether or not your patch is applied, if the put_device() call in
> scsi_request_fn() decreases the sdev reference count to zero, the
> scsi_request_fn() caller will still try to unlock the queue lock after
> scsi_request_fn() finished and hence will trigger a use-after-free. I'm
> afraid the only real solution is to modify the SCSI and/or block layers
> such that scsi_remove_device() can't finish while scsi_request_fn() is
> in progress. And once that is guaranteed the get_device() / put_device()
> pair can be left out from scsi_request_fn().
(replying to my own e-mail)
How about the patch below ?
[PATCH] Fix device removal race
If the put_device() call in scsi_request_fn() drops the sdev refcount
to zero then the spin_lock_irq() call after the put_device() call
triggers a use-after-free. Avoid that by making sure that blk_cleanup_queue()
can only finish after all active scsi_request_fn() calls have returned.
---
block/blk-core.c | 1 +
drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 10 ++--------
include/linux/blkdev.h | 5 +++++
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index 4b4dbdf..0e4da3b 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -388,6 +388,7 @@ void blk_drain_queue(struct request_queue *q, bool drain_all)
__blk_run_queue(q);
drain |= q->nr_rqs_elvpriv;
+ drain |= q->request_fn_active;
/*
* Unfortunately, requests are queued at and tracked from
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
index ffd7773..10bb348 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
@@ -1514,9 +1514,7 @@ static void scsi_request_fn(struct request_queue *q)
struct scsi_cmnd *cmd;
struct request *req;
- if(!get_device(&sdev->sdev_gendev))
- /* We must be tearing the block queue down already */
- return;
+ q->request_fn_active++;
/*
* To start with, we keep looping until the queue is empty, or until
@@ -1626,11 +1624,7 @@ out_delay:
if (sdev->device_busy == 0)
blk_delay_queue(q, SCSI_QUEUE_DELAY);
out:
- /* must be careful here...if we trigger the ->remove() function
- * we cannot be holding the q lock */
- spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
- put_device(&sdev->sdev_gendev);
- spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
+ q->request_fn_active--;
}
u64 scsi_calculate_bounce_limit(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index 4e72a9d..11c1987 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -377,6 +377,11 @@ struct request_queue {
unsigned int nr_sorted;
unsigned int in_flight[2];
+ /*
+ * Number of active request_fn() calls for those request_fn()
+ * implementations that unlock the queue_lock, e.g. scsi_request_fn().
+ */
+ unsigned int request_fn_active;
unsigned int rq_timeout;
struct timer_list timeout;
--
1.7.7
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-18 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-10 3:22 [PATCH][SCSI] remove the queue unlock in scsi_requset_fn Chanho Min
2012-08-13 17:47 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-14 9:48 ` [PATCH RESEND] " Chanho Min
2012-08-14 12:07 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-16 1:35 ` Chanho Min
2012-08-16 7:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-16 8:10 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-18 11:56 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2012-08-16 7:56 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-16 7:56 ` James Bottomley
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=502F8300.2060307@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chanho0207@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=tj@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.