From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
Steffen Maier <maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Manvanthara B. Puttashankar" <manvanth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@in.ibm.com>,
"Seshagiri N. Ippili" <sesh17@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
jaxboe@fusionio.com
Subject: Re: block: Check that queue is alive in blk_insert_cloned_request()
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:46:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110712014633.GA30965@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110712012206.GA30690@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 09:22:06PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11 2011 at 8:52pm -0400,
> Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > > [cc'ing dm-devel, vivek and tejun]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > From: Roland Dreier <roland@purestorage.com>
> > > >
> > > > This fixes crashes such as the below that I see when the storage
> > > > underlying a dm-multipath device is hot-removed. ?The problem is that
> > > > dm requeues a request to a device whose block queue has already been
> > > > cleaned up, and blk_insert_cloned_request() doesn't check if the queue
> > > > is alive, but rather goes ahead and tries to queue the request. ?This
> > > > ends up dereferencing the elevator that was already freed in
> > > > blk_cleanup_queue().
> > >
> > > Your patch looks fine to me:
> > > Acked-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> >
> > There's still the issue that Stefan Richter pointed out: The test for a
> > dead queue must be made _after_ acquiring the queue lock, not _before_.
>
> Yes, quite important.
>
> Jens, can you tweak the patch or should Roland send a v2?
I do not think that we should do queue dead check after taking a spinlock.
The reason being that there are life time issues of two objects.
- Validity of request queue pointer
- Validity of q->spin_lock pointer
If the dm has taken the reference to the request queue in the beginning
then it can be sure request queue pointer is valid. But spin_lock might
be coming from driver and might be in one of driver allocated structures.
So it might happen that driver has called blk_cleanup_queue() and freed
up structures which contained the spin lock.
So if queue is not dead, we know that q->spin_lock is valid. I think
only race present here is that whole operation is not atomic. First
we check for queue not dead flag and then go on to acquire request
queue lock. So this leaves a small window for race. I think I have
seen other code written in such manner (__generic_make_request()). So
it proably reasonably safe to do here too.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-12 1:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAG4TOxMjuntpd3Q5jgn+xDa2tgB9tq+jLcDquM_eAdFHXLDrWA@mail.gmail.com>
2011-07-08 23:04 ` [PATCH] block: Check that queue is alive in blk_insert_cloned_request() Roland Dreier
2011-07-09 9:05 ` Stefan Richter
2011-07-11 22:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-07-12 0:52 ` Alan Stern
2011-07-12 1:22 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-07-12 1:46 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-07-12 15:24 ` Alan Stern
2011-07-12 17:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-12 14:58 ` [PATCH] dm mpath: manage reference on request queue of underlying devices Mike Snitzer
2011-07-12 17:06 ` [PATCH] block: Check that queue is alive in blk_insert_cloned_request() Vivek Goyal
2011-07-12 17:41 ` James Bottomley
2011-07-12 18:02 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-12 18:28 ` James Bottomley
2011-07-12 18:54 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-12 21:02 ` Alan Stern
2011-07-12 2:09 ` Vivek Goyal
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=20110712014633.GA30965@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=manvanth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=roland@kernel.org \
--cc=sesh17@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tarak.reddy@in.ibm.com \
--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