From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@gmail.com>
Cc: colyli@fnnas.com, axboe@kernel.dk, sashal@kernel.org,
linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhangshida@kylinos.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: fix double bio_endio completion in detached_dev_end_io
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 03:59:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aWiqMzQ9PIWFfyfP@moria.home.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANubcdUdQ9gJ7uQELc80h0+FpurR5f2COmB3hBEDejavfFZJ9g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 04:06:53PM +0800, Stephen Zhang wrote:
> zhangshida <starzhangzsd@gmail.com> 于2026年1月15日周四 15:48写道:
> >
> > From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@kylinos.cn>
> >
> > Commit 53280e398471 ("bcache: fix improper use of bi_end_io") attempted
> > to fix up bio completions by replacing manual bi_end_io calls with
> > bio_endio(). However, it introduced a double-completion bug in the
> > detached_dev path.
> >
> > In a normal completion path, the call stack is:
> > blk_update_request
> > bio_endio(bio)
> > bio->bi_end_io(bio) -> detached_dev_end_io
> > bio_endio(bio) <- BUG: second call
> >
> > To fix this, detached_dev_end_io() must manually call the next completion
> > handler in the chain.
> >
> > However, in detached_dev_do_request(), if a discard is unsupported, the
> > bio is rejected before being submitted to the lower level. In this case,
> > we can use the standard bio_endio().
> >
> > detached_dev_do_request
> > bio_endio(bio) <- Correct: starts completion for
> > unsubmitted bio
> >
> > Fixes: 53280e398471 ("bcache: fix improper use of bi_end_io")
> > Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@kylinos.cn>
> > ---
> > drivers/md/bcache/request.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> > index 82fdea7dea7..ec712b5879f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> > @@ -1104,7 +1104,14 @@ static void detached_dev_end_io(struct bio *bio)
> > }
> >
> > kfree(ddip);
> > - bio_endio(bio);
> > + /*
> > + * This is an exception where bio_endio() cannot be used.
> > + * We are already called from within a bio_endio() stack;
> > + * calling it again here would result in a double-completion
> > + * (decrementing bi_remaining twice). We must call the
> > + * original completion routine directly.
> > + */
> > + bio->bi_end_io(bio);
> > }
> >
> > static void detached_dev_do_request(struct bcache_device *d, struct bio *bio,
> > @@ -1136,7 +1143,7 @@ static void detached_dev_do_request(struct bcache_device *d, struct bio *bio,
> >
> > if ((bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_DISCARD) &&
> > !bdev_max_discard_sectors(dc->bdev))
> > - detached_dev_end_io(bio);
> > + bio_endio(bio);
> > else
> > submit_bio_noacct(bio);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> My apologies for the late reply due to a delay in checking my working inbox.
> I see the issue mentioned in:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/aWU2mO5v6RezmIpZ@moria.home.lan/
> this was indeed an oversight on my part.
>
> To resolve this quickly, I've prepared a direct fix for the
> double-completion bug.
> I hope this is better than a full revert.
In general, it's just safer, simpler and saner to revert, reverting a
patch is not something to be avoided. If there's _any_ new trickyness
required in the fix, it's better to just revert than rush things.
I revert or kick patches out - including my own - all the time.
That said, this patch is good, you've got a comment explaining what's
going on. Christoph's version of just always cloning the bio is
definitely cleaner, but that's a bigger change,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-15 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-15 7:48 [PATCH] bcache: fix double bio_endio completion in detached_dev_end_io zhangshida
2026-01-15 8:06 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-01-15 8:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-18 11:49 ` Coly Li
2026-01-19 6:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-19 8:19 ` Coly Li
2026-01-19 8:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-19 8:51 ` Coly Li
2026-01-19 6:53 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-01-19 8:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-01-15 8:59 ` Kent Overstreet [this message]
2026-01-15 9:17 ` Stephen Zhang
2026-01-15 9:28 ` Kent Overstreet
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=aWiqMzQ9PIWFfyfP@moria.home.lan \
--to=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=colyli@fnnas.com \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=starzhangzsd@gmail.com \
--cc=zhangshida@kylinos.cn \
/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