From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@hq.newdream.net>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Paul Clements <Paul.Clements@steeleye.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Race condition during hotplug when dropping block queue lock
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:11:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120611111153.GA1854@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> (raw)
Block drivers like nbd and rbd unlock struct request_queue->queue_lock in their
request_fn. I'd like to do the same in virtio_blk. After happily posting the
patch, Michael Tsirkin pointed out an issue that I can't explain. This may
affect existing block drivers that unlock the queue_lock too.
What happens when the block device is removed (hot unplug or kernel module
unloaded) while a thread is in request_fn and queue_lock is not held? If the
in-flight request is held in a driver-specific datastructure then the remove
operation can wait until all in-flight requests complete.
But here is the tricky case: what if the request actually completes during the
period where queue_lock is unlocked? In this case we execute queue_lock
unlocked code while there are no requests in-flight. It seems that the block
device could be removed during this window of time. When we get around to
locking queue_lock again to return from the request_fn the queue no longer
exists.
What protects against this case? I don't see significant protection in nbd/rbd
to prevent this so maybe there is a generic mechanism that I'm unaware of?
Here is the small patch to unlock virtio_blk during the guest->host notify
operation (which occasionally could take a long time so we don't want to keep
holding the queue_lock). Imagine that the request completes just after
virtqueue_notify() and this virtio_blk device is being hot unplugged. If hot
unplug completes before reacquiring the queue_lock and leaving this function
the result is a use-after-free of queue_lock.
diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
index 774c31d..d674977 100644
--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
@@ -199,8 +199,14 @@ static void do_virtblk_request(struct request_queue *q)
issued++;
}
- if (issued)
- virtqueue_kick(vblk->vq);
+ if (!issued)
+ return;
+
+ if (virtqueue_kick_prepare(vblk->vq)) {
+ spin_unlock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
+ virtqueue_notify(vblk->vq);
+ spin_lock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
+ }
}
/* return id (s/n) string for *disk to *id_str
Stefan
reply other threads:[~2012-06-11 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20120611111153.GA1854@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain \
--to=stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Paul.Clements@steeleye.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yehuda@hq.newdream.net \
/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