From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "Jörn Engel" <joern@logfs.org>, oren@purestorage.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix race in get_request()
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 08:28:47 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53E4DE9F.7090603@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53E4DD9C.1050306@kernel.dk>
On 08/08/2014 08:24 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 06:54 PM, Jörn Engel wrote:
>> Hello Jens!
>>
>> I came across the below while investigating some other problem.
>> Something here doesn't seem right. This looks like an obvious bug and
>> something roughly along the lines of my patch would fix it. But I
>> must be in the wrong decade to find such a bug in the block layer.
>>
>> Is this for real? Or if not, what am I missing?
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> --
>>
>> If __get_request() returns NULL, get_request will call
>> prepare_to_wait_exclusive() followed by io_schedule(). Not rechecking
>> the sleep condition after prepare_to_wait_exclusive() leaves a race
>> where the condition changes before prepare_to_wait_exclusive(), but
>> not after and accordingly this thread never gets woken up.
>>
>> The race must be exceedingly hard to hit, otherwise I cannot explain how
>> such a classic race could outlive the last millenium.
>
> I think that is a genuine bug, it's just extremely hard to hit in real
> life. It has probably only potentially ever triggered in the cases where
> we are so out of memory that a blocking ~300b alloc fails, and Linux
> generally shits itself pretty hard when it gets to that stage anyway...
> And for the bug to be critical, you'd need this to happen for a device
> that otherwise has no IO pending, since you'd get woken up by the next
> completed request anyway.
Actually, this can't trigger for an empty queue, since the mempool holds
a few requests. So it should never result in a softlock, we will make
progress. Given that we also still hold the queue spinlock (that will be
held for a free as well), we should not be able to get a free of a
request until the prepare_to_wait() has been done. So not sure there is
an actual bug there, but I agree the code looks confusing that way.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-08 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-08 0:54 [PATCH] Fix race in get_request() Jörn Engel
2014-08-08 14:24 ` Jens Axboe
2014-08-08 14:28 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2014-08-08 17:43 ` Jörn Engel
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=53E4DE9F.7090603@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=joern@logfs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oren@purestorage.com \
/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.