From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@gmail.com>
Cc: colyli@fnnas.com, axboe@kernel.dk, sashal@kernel.org,
linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhangshida@kylinos.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: fix double bio_endio completion in detached_dev_end_io
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 03:59:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aWiqMzQ9PIWFfyfP@moria.home.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANubcdUdQ9gJ7uQELc80h0+FpurR5f2COmB3hBEDejavfFZJ9g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 04:06:53PM +0800, Stephen Zhang wrote:
> zhangshida <starzhangzsd@gmail.com> 于2026年1月15日周四 15:48写道:
> >
> > From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@kylinos.cn>
> >
> > Commit 53280e398471 ("bcache: fix improper use of bi_end_io") attempted
> > to fix up bio completions by replacing manual bi_end_io calls with
> > bio_endio(). However, it introduced a double-completion bug in the
> > detached_dev path.
> >
> > In a normal completion path, the call stack is:
> > blk_update_request
> > bio_endio(bio)
> > bio->bi_end_io(bio) -> detached_dev_end_io
> > bio_endio(bio) <- BUG: second call
> >
> > To fix this, detached_dev_end_io() must manually call the next completion
> > handler in the chain.
> >
> > However, in detached_dev_do_request(), if a discard is unsupported, the
> > bio is rejected before being submitted to the lower level. In this case,
> > we can use the standard bio_endio().
> >
> > detached_dev_do_request
> > bio_endio(bio) <- Correct: starts completion for
> > unsubmitted bio
> >
> > Fixes: 53280e398471 ("bcache: fix improper use of bi_end_io")
> > Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@kylinos.cn>
> > ---
> > drivers/md/bcache/request.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> > index 82fdea7dea7..ec712b5879f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> > @@ -1104,7 +1104,14 @@ static void detached_dev_end_io(struct bio *bio)
> > }
> >
> > kfree(ddip);
> > - bio_endio(bio);
> > + /*
> > + * This is an exception where bio_endio() cannot be used.
> > + * We are already called from within a bio_endio() stack;
> > + * calling it again here would result in a double-completion
> > + * (decrementing bi_remaining twice). We must call the
> > + * original completion routine directly.
> > + */
> > + bio->bi_end_io(bio);
> > }
> >
> > static void detached_dev_do_request(struct bcache_device *d, struct bio *bio,
> > @@ -1136,7 +1143,7 @@ static void detached_dev_do_request(struct bcache_device *d, struct bio *bio,
> >
> > if ((bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_DISCARD) &&
> > !bdev_max_discard_sectors(dc->bdev))
> > - detached_dev_end_io(bio);
> > + bio_endio(bio);
> > else
> > submit_bio_noacct(bio);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> My apologies for the late reply due to a delay in checking my working inbox.
> I see the issue mentioned in:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/aWU2mO5v6RezmIpZ@moria.home.lan/
> this was indeed an oversight on my part.
>
> To resolve this quickly, I've prepared a direct fix for the
> double-completion bug.
> I hope this is better than a full revert.
In general, it's just safer, simpler and saner to revert, reverting a
patch is not something to be avoided. If there's _any_ new trickyness
required in the fix, it's better to just revert than rush things.
I revert or kick patches out - including my own - all the time.
That said, this patch is good, you've got a comment explaining what's
going on. Christoph's version of just always cloning the bio is
definitely cleaner, but that's a bigger change,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-15 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-15 7:48 [PATCH] bcache: fix double bio_endio completion in detached_dev_end_io zhangshida
2026-01-15 8:06 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-01-15 8:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-18 11:49 ` Coly Li
2026-01-19 6:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-19 8:19 ` Coly Li
2026-01-19 8:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-19 8:51 ` Coly Li
2026-01-19 6:53 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-01-19 8:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-15 8:59 ` Kent Overstreet [this message]
2026-01-15 9:17 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-01-15 9:28 ` Kent Overstreet
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=aWiqMzQ9PIWFfyfP@moria.home.lan \
--to=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=colyli@fnnas.com \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=starzhangzsd@gmail.com \
--cc=zhangshida@kylinos.cn \
/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.