Re: dm: bounce_pfn limit added

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:31:39 +0300
Vasily Averin <vvs@sw.ru> wrote:

> Device mapper uses its own bounce_pfn that may differ from one on underlying
> device. In that way dm can build incorrect requests that contain sg elements
> greater than underlying device is able to handle.
> 
> This is the cause of slab corruption in i2o layer, occurred on i386 arch when
> very long direct IO requests are addressed to dm-over-i2o device.
> 
> Signed-off-by:	Vasily Averin <vvs@sw.ru>
> 
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> @@ -102,6 +102,8 @@ static void combine_restrictions_low(struct io_restrictions
>  	lhs->seg_boundary_mask =
>  		min_not_zero(lhs->seg_boundary_mask, rhs->seg_boundary_mask);
> 
> +	lhs->bounce_pfn = min_not_zero(lhs->bounce_pfn, rhs->bounce_pfn);
> +
>  	lhs->no_cluster |= rhs->no_cluster;
>  }
> 
> @@ -566,6 +568,8 @@ void dm_set_device_limits(struct dm_target *ti, struct
>  		min_not_zero(rs->seg_boundary_mask,
>  			     q->seg_boundary_mask);
> 
> +	rs->bounce_pfn = min_not_zero(rs->bounce_pfn, q->bounce_pfn);
> +
>  	rs->no_cluster |= !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER, &q->queue_flags);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dm_set_device_limits);
> @@ -707,6 +711,8 @@ static void check_for_valid_limits(struct io_restrictions
>  		rs->max_segment_size = MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE;
>  	if (!rs->seg_boundary_mask)
>  		rs->seg_boundary_mask = -1;
> +	if (!rs->bounce_pfn)
> +		rs->bounce_pfn = -1;
>  }
> 
>  int dm_table_add_target(struct dm_table *t, const char *type,
> @@ -891,6 +897,7 @@ void dm_table_set_restrictions(struct dm_table *t, struct
>  	q->hardsect_size = t->limits.hardsect_size;
>  	q->max_segment_size = t->limits.max_segment_size;
>  	q->seg_boundary_mask = t->limits.seg_boundary_mask;
> +	q->bounce_pfn = t->limits.bounce_pfn;
>  	if (t->limits.no_cluster)
>  		q->queue_flags &= ~(1 << QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER);
>  	else
> --- a/include/linux/device-mapper.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device-mapper.h
> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ struct target_type {
> 
>  struct io_restrictions {
>  	unsigned long		seg_boundary_mask;
> +	unsigned long		bounce_pfn;
>  	unsigned int		max_sectors;
>  	unsigned int		max_segment_size;
>  	unsigned short		max_phys_segments;

Well that's a rather grave sounding bug.  Two days and nobody from DM land
has commented?  Hello?

I'll tag this as needed in 2.6.23.x as well.

I'll duck the "dm: struct io_restriction reordered" patch.  People have
been changing things around in there and I had to fix a reject in "dm:
bounce_pfn limit added" to make it apply - let's not complicate life.

However it is a good change and hopefully the DM people will pick it up.