public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "Jörn Engel" <joern@logfs.org>, oren@purestorage.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix race in get_request()
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 08:24:28 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53E4DD9C.1050306@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140808005443.GA7895@logfs.org>

On 08/07/2014 06:54 PM, Jörn Engel wrote:
> Hello Jens!
> 
> I came across the below while investigating some other problem.
> Something here doesn't seem right.  This looks like an obvious bug and
> something roughly along the lines of my patch would fix it.  But I
> must be in the wrong decade to find such a bug in the block layer.
> 
> Is this for real?  Or if not, what am I missing?
> 
> Jörn
> 
> --
> 
> If __get_request() returns NULL, get_request will call
> prepare_to_wait_exclusive() followed by io_schedule().  Not rechecking
> the sleep condition after prepare_to_wait_exclusive() leaves a race
> where the condition changes before prepare_to_wait_exclusive(), but
> not after and accordingly this thread never gets woken up.
> 
> The race must be exceedingly hard to hit, otherwise I cannot explain how
> such a classic race could outlive the last millenium.

I think that is a genuine bug, it's just extremely hard to hit in real
life. It has probably only potentially ever triggered in the cases where
we are so out of memory that a blocking ~300b alloc fails, and Linux
generally shits itself pretty hard when it gets to that stage anyway...
And for the bug to be critical, you'd need this to happen for a device
that otherwise has no IO pending, since you'd get woken up by the next
completed request anyway.

> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 3275353957f0..00aa6c7abe5a 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -1068,6 +1068,11 @@ retry:
>  
>  	trace_block_sleeprq(q, bio, rw_flags & 1);
>  
> +	rq = __get_request(rl, rw_flags, bio, gfp_mask);
> +	if (rq) {
> +		finish_wait(&rl->wait[is_sync], &wait);
> +		return rq;
> +	}

The extra __get_request() call should go before the
trace_block_sleeprq(), however. I'll rejuggle that when applying.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-08 14:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-08  0:54 [PATCH] Fix race in get_request() Jörn Engel
2014-08-08 14:24 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2014-08-08 14:28   ` Jens Axboe
2014-08-08 17:43     ` Jörn Engel

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=53E4DD9C.1050306@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=joern@logfs.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oren@purestorage.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