Linux block layer
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	Israel Rukshin <israelr@mellanox.com>,
	Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] blk-mq: Fix race conditions in request timeout handling
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:04:27 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180410100422.GA14432@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6fcc94b-412c-1552-477e-ba0b0927006c@oracle.com>

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:59:30PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi Bart
> 
> On 04/10/2018 09:34 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > If a completion occurs after blk_mq_rq_timed_out() has reset
> > rq->aborted_gstate and the request is again in flight when the timeout
> > expires then a request will be completed twice: a first time by the
> > timeout handler and a second time when the regular completion occurs
> 
> Would you please detail more here about why the request could be completed twice ?
> 
> Is it the scenario you described as below in https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=151796816127318
> 
> The following race can occur between the code that resets the timer
> and completion handling:
> - The code that handles BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER resets aborted_gstate.
> - A completion occurs and blk_mq_complete_request() calls
>   __blk_mq_complete_request().
> - The timeout code calls blk_add_timer() and that function sets the
>   request deadline and adjusts the timer.
> - __blk_mq_complete_request() frees the request tag.
> - The timer fires and the timeout handler gets called for a freed
>   request.
> If yes, how does the timeout handler get the freed request when the tag has been freed ?

Thinking of this patch further.

The issue may not be a double completion issue, and it may be the
following behaviour which breaks NVMe or other drivers easily:

1) there is long delay(synchronize_rcu()) between setting rq->aborted_gstate
and handling the timeout by blk_mq_rq_timed_out().

2) during the long delay, the rq may be completed by hardware, then
if the following timeout is handled as BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER, it is
driver's bug, and driver's .timeout() may be confused about this
behaviour, I guess.

In theory this behaviour should exist in all these approaches,
but just easier to trigger if long delay is introduced before handling
timeout.

Thanks,
Ming

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-10 10:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-10  1:34 [PATCH v4] blk-mq: Fix race conditions in request timeout handling Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10  7:59 ` jianchao.wang
2018-04-10 10:04   ` Ming Lei [this message]
2018-04-10 12:04     ` Shan Hai
2018-04-10 13:01   ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 14:32     ` jianchao.wang
2018-04-10  8:41 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-10 12:58   ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 13:55     ` Ming Lei
2018-04-10 14:09       ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 14:30         ` Ming Lei
2018-04-10 15:02           ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 15:25             ` Ming Lei
2018-04-10 15:30               ` tj
2018-04-10 15:38                 ` Ming Lei
2018-04-10 15:40                   ` tj
2018-04-10 21:33                     ` tj
2018-04-10 21:46                       ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 21:54                         ` tj
2018-04-11 12:50                           ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 14:16                             ` tj
2018-04-11 18:38                             ` Martin Steigerwald
2018-04-11 14:24                           ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-04-11 14:43                             ` tj
2018-04-11 16:16                             ` Israel Rukshin
2018-04-11 17:07                               ` tj
2018-04-11 21:31                                 ` tj
2018-04-12  8:59                                   ` Israel Rukshin
2018-04-12 13:35                                     ` tj
2018-04-15 12:28                                       ` Israel Rukshin
2018-04-18 16:34                           ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10  9:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-04-10 13:26   ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 14:50     ` hch
2018-04-10 14:41   ` Jens Axboe
2018-04-10 14:20 ` Tejun Heo
2018-04-10 14:30   ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-10 14:33     ` tj

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=20180410100422.GA14432@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=israelr@mellanox.com \
    --cc=jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maxg@mellanox.com \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox