From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Chanho Min <chanho0207@gmail.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix NULL-pointer dereference on scsi_run_queue
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:01:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <501B3F16.3090308@cs.wisc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1343900093.5073.15.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
On 08/02/2012 04:34 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 18:28 +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, James Bottomley
>> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 17:41 +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
>>>> This patch is to fix a oops from a torn down device. When
>>>> scsi_run_queue process starved queues, scsi_request_fn can race with
>>>> scsi_remove_device. In this case, rarely, scsi_request_fn release the
>>>> last reference and set sdev->request_queue to NULL. It result in
>>>> NULL-pointer dereference when spin_unlock is tried with (NULL)->
>>>> queue_lock. We need to add an extra reference to the device on both
>>>> sides of the __blk_run_queue to hold reference until scsi_request_fn
>>>> is finished.
>>>
>>> You need a recent kernel with this patch:
>>>
>>> commit 940f5d47e2f2e1fa00443921a0abf4822335b54d
>>> Author: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
>>> Date: Fri Jun 29 15:34:26 2012 +0000
>>>
>>> [SCSI] Avoid dangling pointer in scsi_requeue_command()
>>>
>>> James
>> It is different from my case. This is occured inside scsi_run_queue
>> and on processing starved_list.
>> Another sdev is obtained from starved_list.
>
> Does it occur with that patch applied?
>
> If it does, the likely fix would be to take a copy of the queue ... but
> I'd like to understand why first. An active command has an automatic
> reference to the sdev_gendev, so it shouldn't be the normal case. This
> was broken by unprep because it releases the command from the queue and
> drops the reference. We may have another case like unjprep, but in that
> case, we need to find it ... trying to add extra get/put_device() calls
> will paper over the problem.
>
I think the problem is that __scsi_remove_device will now wait for
commands to get dequeued and run, before proceeding but we do not take a
device off the starved list until scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext is
run, or maybe thinking about it another way scsi_kill_request does not
remove sdevs from the starved list if the device is being removed.
So lets say we hit the not_ready path in scsi_request_fn and put the
sdev on the starved list. Then we remove the device. We could end up
putting the device in SDEV_DEL, and then calling scsi_request_fn via
blk_cleanup_queue's drain queue call. scsi_request_fn would hit the
scsi_device_online check and fail the IO, but we never took the sdev off
the starved list from what I can tell.
Now, there is no IO in the queue and so __scsi_remove_device continues.
It then calls scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext at the same time some
other thread is calling scsi_run_queue. We then race. scsi_run_queue
splices the starved list with the sdev we are trying to remove and
deletes the list entry from the list and drops the host lock. But then
scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext grabs the host lock and ends up
running the entire function and freeing the queue. Then scsi_run_queue
tries to access the sdev and queue so it can grab the queue lock that
was just freed and kablewy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-03 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-02 8:41 [PATCH] fix NULL-pointer dereference on scsi_run_queue Chanho Min
2012-08-02 8:57 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-02 9:28 ` Chanho Min
2012-08-02 9:34 ` James Bottomley
2012-08-03 2:28 ` Chanho Min
2012-08-03 3:01 ` Mike Christie [this message]
2012-08-04 9:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-04 16:46 ` Mike Christie
2012-08-04 20:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-04 22:36 ` Mike Christie
2012-08-06 17:56 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-07 8:53 ` Chanho Min
2012-08-07 9:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-08 3:42 ` Chanho Min
2012-08-08 7:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-07 9:43 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-08-07 16:16 ` Mike Christie
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=501B3F16.3090308@cs.wisc.edu \
--to=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chanho0207@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@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