public inbox for linux-block@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>
Cc: josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, nbd@other.debian.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nbd: make starting request more reasonable
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 23:30:33 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200316153033.GA11016@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9cdba8b1-f0e5-a079-8d44-0078478dd4d8@huawei.com>

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 08:26:35PM +0800, Yufen Yu wrote:
> Ping and Cc to more expert in blk-mq.
> 
> On 2020/3/3 21:08, Yufen Yu wrote:
> > Our test robot reported a warning for refcount_dec trying to decrease
> > value '0'. The reason is that blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() try to complete
> > the failed request from nbd driver, while the request have finished in
> > nbd timeout handle function. The race as following:
> > 
> > CPU1                             CPU2
> > 
> > //req->ref = 1
> > blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list
> > nbd_queue_rq
> >    nbd_handle_cmd
> >      blk_mq_start_request
> >                                   blk_mq_check_expired
> >                                     //req->ref = 2
> >                                     blk_mq_rq_timed_out
> >                                       nbd_xmit_timeout

This shouldn't happen in reality, given rq->deadline is just updated
in blk_mq_start_request(), suppose you use the default 30 sec timeout.
How can the race be triggered in so short time?

Could you explain a bit your test case?

> >                                         blk_mq_complete_request
> >                                           //req->ref = 1
> >                                           refcount_dec_and_test(&req->ref)
> > 
> >                                     refcount_dec_and_test(&req->ref)
> >                                     //req->ref = 0
> >                                       __blk_mq_free_request(req)
> >    ret = BLK_STS_IOERR
> > blk_mq_end_request
> > // req->ref = 0, req have been free
> > refcount_dec_and_test(&rq->ref)
> > 
> > In fact, the bug also have been reported by syzbot:
> >    https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/5/1308
> > 
> > Since the request have been freed by timeout handle, it can be reused
> > by others. Then, blk_mq_end_request() may get the re-initialized request
> > and free it, which is unexpected.
> > 
> > To fix the problem, we move blk_mq_start_request() down until the driver
> > will handle the request actully. If .queue_rq return something error in
> > preparation phase, timeout handle may don't need. Thus, moving start
> > request down may be more reasonable. Then, nbd_queue_rq() will not return
> > BLK_STS_IOERR after starting request.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/block/nbd.c | 6 ++----
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/nbd.c b/drivers/block/nbd.c
> > index 78181908f0df..5256e9d02a03 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/nbd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c
> > @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ static int nbd_send_cmd(struct nbd_device *nbd, struct nbd_cmd *cmd, int index)
> >   		return -EIO;
> >   	}
> > +	blk_mq_start_request(req);
> > +
> >   	if (req->cmd_flags & REQ_FUA)
> >   		nbd_cmd_flags |= NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA;
> > @@ -879,7 +881,6 @@ static int nbd_handle_cmd(struct nbd_cmd *cmd, int index)
> >   	if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&nbd->config_refs)) {
> >   		dev_err_ratelimited(disk_to_dev(nbd->disk),
> >   				    "Socks array is empty\n");
> > -		blk_mq_start_request(req);

I think it is fine to not start request in case of failure, given 
__blk_mq_end_request() doesn't check rq's state.



Thanks,
Ming


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-16 15:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-03 13:08 [PATCH] nbd: make starting request more reasonable Yufen Yu
2020-03-03 21:18 ` Josef Bacik
2020-03-04  2:10   ` Yufen Yu
2020-03-16 12:26 ` Yufen Yu
2020-03-16 15:30   ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-03-16 16:02     ` Keith Busch
2020-03-17  2:41       ` Ming Lei
2020-03-23 14:08     ` Yufen Yu

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=20200316153033.GA11016@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nbd@other.debian.org \
    --cc=yuyufen@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox