Re: bug fix patch lost: git problem or just incorrect merge?

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>]

On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 10:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 21 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > > Either way, of course, we need the patch back ...
> > 
> > I'll fix it up.
> 
> Hmm. Pushed that out as appended, since that is the correct resolve.

Thanks!

> HOWEVER - the code still doesn't actually make any sense. It does
> 
> 	if (sk_sleep(sock->sk)) {
> 
> and that sk_sleep() today is an inline function that just does
> 
> 	return &sk->sk_wq->wait;
> 
> and testing the result of an address-of operation for NULL is almost 
> certainly totally non-sensical. Sure, it _might_ work (maybe 'wait' is the 
> first element in the 'sk_wq' data structure, and sk_wq is NULL), but that 
> kind of code is always total and utterl crap regardless.
> 
> So I pushed it out because I had done the resolve already, and it's no 
> worse than it was before, but it's still a steaming buggy pile of shit.

Yes, the problem was caused by this patch

commit 43815482370c510c569fd18edb57afcb0fa8cab6
Author: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Apr 29 11:01:49 2010 +0000

    net: sock_def_readable() and friends RCU conversion

Which moved sk_sleep() from returning the pointer to the waitqueue,
which may or may not be assigned to returning a pointer to an internal
waitqueue in the socket, which, obviously, can never be null.

I suspect what iscsi should be doing is always sending the wakeup ... in
which case with your resolution, the code is operating correctly even if
the form is suboptimal.

> It being iscsi, I can't bring myself to care. But somebody who does, 
> should really look at it. The most likely resolution is to remove the test 
> entirely, since I don't think it's ever valid to have a socket that 
> doesn't have a sk_wq (there's a _lot_ of unconditional use of sk_sleep()).

I'll have Mike look at it, but I think just removing the if() will be
the correct resolution.

James