Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Christoph Hellwig]

Looks good,

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> segment than queue_max_segments().

Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
create it?

> To fix it, let's simply
> remove the BUG_ON() which has become unnecessary after commit
> 02746e26c39e("virtio-blk: avoid preallocating big SGL for data").
> And the unused vblk->sg_elems can also be removed together.
> 
> Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 +---------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> index c443cd64fc9b..a43eb1813cec 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> @@ -76,9 +76,6 @@ struct virtio_blk {
>  	 */
>  	refcount_t refs;
>  
> -	/* What host tells us, plus 2 for header & tailer. */
> -	unsigned int sg_elems;
> -
>  	/* Ida index - used to track minor number allocations. */
>  	int index;
>  
> @@ -322,8 +319,6 @@ static blk_status_t virtio_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>  	blk_status_t status;
>  	int err;
>  
> -	BUG_ON(req->nr_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
> -
>  	status = virtblk_setup_cmd(vblk->vdev, req, vbr);
>  	if (unlikely(status))
>  		return status;
> @@ -783,8 +778,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  	/* Prevent integer overflows and honor max vq size */
>  	sg_elems = min_t(u32, sg_elems, VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS - 2);
>  
> -	/* We need extra sg elements at head and tail. */
> -	sg_elems += 2;
>  	vdev->priv = vblk = kmalloc(sizeof(*vblk), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!vblk) {
>  		err = -ENOMEM;
> @@ -796,7 +789,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  	mutex_init(&vblk->vdev_mutex);
>  
>  	vblk->vdev = vdev;
> -	vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems;
>  
>  	INIT_WORK(&vblk->config_work, virtblk_config_changed_work);
>  
> @@ -853,7 +845,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  		set_disk_ro(vblk->disk, 1);
>  
>  	/* We can handle whatever the host told us to handle. */
> -	blk_queue_max_segments(q, vblk->sg_elems-2);
> +	blk_queue_max_segments(q, sg_elems);
>  
>  	/* No real sector limit. */
>  	blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, -1U);
> -- 
> 2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 06:46:03PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:43 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > > list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > > However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > > instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > > discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > > virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > > segment than queue_max_segments().
> >
> > Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > create it?
> >
> 
> One example: the device doesn't specify the value of max_discard_seg
> in the config space, then the virtio-blk driver will use
> MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS (256) by default. Then we're able to trigger the
> BUG_ON() if the seg_max is less than 256.
> 
> While the spec didn't say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> exceeds seg_max, it also doesn't explicitly prohibit this
> configuration. So I think we should at least not panic the kernel in
> this case.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yongji

Oh that last one sounds like a bug, I think it should be
min(MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS, seg_max)

When max_discard_seg and seg_max both exist, that's a different question. We can
- do min(max_discard_seg, seg_max)
- fail probe
- clear the relevant feature flag

I feel we need a better plan than submitting an invalid request to device.

-- 
MST

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 11:31:35AM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 11:05 PM Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/2/2022 3:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 06:46:03PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:43 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > >>>> Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > >>>> list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > >>>> However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > >>>> instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > >>>> discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > >>>> virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > >>>> segment than queue_max_segments().
> > >>> Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > >>> exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > >>> create it?
> > >>>
> > >> One example: the device doesn't specify the value of max_discard_seg
> > >> in the config space, then the virtio-blk driver will use
> > >> MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS (256) by default. Then we're able to trigger the
> > >> BUG_ON() if the seg_max is less than 256.
> > >>
> > >> While the spec didn't say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > >> exceeds seg_max, it also doesn't explicitly prohibit this
> > >> configuration. So I think we should at least not panic the kernel in
> > >> this case.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Yongji
> > > Oh that last one sounds like a bug, I think it should be
> > > min(MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS, seg_max)
> > >
> > > When max_discard_seg and seg_max both exist, that's a different question. We can
> > > - do min(max_discard_seg, seg_max)
> > > - fail probe
> > > - clear the relevant feature flag
> > >
> > > I feel we need a better plan than submitting an invalid request to device.
> >
> > We should cover only for a buggy devices.
> >
> > The situation that max_discard_seg > seg_max should be fine.
> >
> > Thus the bellow can be added to this patch:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > index c443cd64fc9b..3e372b97fe10 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > @@ -926,8 +926,8 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >                  virtio_cread(vdev, struct virtio_blk_config,
> > max_discard_seg,
> >                               &v);
> >                  blk_queue_max_discard_segments(q,
> > -                                              min_not_zero(v,
> > - MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS));
> > +                                              min_t(u32, (v ? v :
> > sg_elems),
> > + MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS));
> >
> >                  blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
> >          }
> >
> >
> 
> LGTM, I can add this in v3.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yongji

Except the logic is convoluted then.  I would instead add

	/* max_seg == 0 is out of spec but we always handled it */
	if (!v)
		v = sg_elems;


-- 
MST

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:51:27AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> On 3/1/2022 5:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > > list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > > However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > > instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > > discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > > virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > > segment than queue_max_segments().
> > Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > create it?
> 
> I don't think it's hard to create it. Just change some registers in the
> device.
> 
> But with the dynamic sgl allocation that I added recently, there is no
> problem with this scenario.

Well the problem is device says it can't handle such large descriptors,
I guess it works anyway, but it seems scary.

> This commit looks good to me, thanks Xie Yongji.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> 
> > > To fix it, let's simply
> > > remove the BUG_ON() which has become unnecessary after commit
> > > 02746e26c39e("virtio-blk: avoid preallocating big SGL for data").
> > > And the unused vblk->sg_elems can also be removed together.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
> > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 +---------
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > index c443cd64fc9b..a43eb1813cec 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > @@ -76,9 +76,6 @@ struct virtio_blk {
> > >   	 */
> > >   	refcount_t refs;
> > > -	/* What host tells us, plus 2 for header & tailer. */
> > > -	unsigned int sg_elems;
> > > -
> > >   	/* Ida index - used to track minor number allocations. */
> > >   	int index;
> > > @@ -322,8 +319,6 @@ static blk_status_t virtio_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > >   	blk_status_t status;
> > >   	int err;
> > > -	BUG_ON(req->nr_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
> > > -
> > >   	status = virtblk_setup_cmd(vblk->vdev, req, vbr);
> > >   	if (unlikely(status))
> > >   		return status;
> > > @@ -783,8 +778,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > >   	/* Prevent integer overflows and honor max vq size */
> > >   	sg_elems = min_t(u32, sg_elems, VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS - 2);
> > > -	/* We need extra sg elements at head and tail. */
> > > -	sg_elems += 2;
> > >   	vdev->priv = vblk = kmalloc(sizeof(*vblk), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >   	if (!vblk) {
> > >   		err = -ENOMEM;
> > > @@ -796,7 +789,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > >   	mutex_init(&vblk->vdev_mutex);
> > >   	vblk->vdev = vdev;
> > > -	vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems;
> > >   	INIT_WORK(&vblk->config_work, virtblk_config_changed_work);
> > > @@ -853,7 +845,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > >   		set_disk_ro(vblk->disk, 1);
> > >   	/* We can handle whatever the host told us to handle. */
> > > -	blk_queue_max_segments(q, vblk->sg_elems-2);
> > > +	blk_queue_max_segments(q, sg_elems);
> > >   	/* No real sector limit. */
> > >   	blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, -1U);
> > > -- 
> > > 2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> On 3/2/2022 3:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:51:27AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 3/1/2022 5:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > > > Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > > > > list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > > > > However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > > > > instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > > > > discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > > > > virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > > > > segment than queue_max_segments().
> > > > Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > > > exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > > > create it?
> > > I don't think it's hard to create it. Just change some registers in the
> > > device.
> > > 
> > > But with the dynamic sgl allocation that I added recently, there is no
> > > problem with this scenario.
> > Well the problem is device says it can't handle such large descriptors,
> > I guess it works anyway, but it seems scary.
> 
> I don't follow.
> 
> The only problem this patch solves is when a virtio blk device reports
> larger value for max_discard_segments than max_segments.
> 

No, the peroblem reported is when virtio blk device reports
max_segments < 256 but not max_discard_segments.
I would expect discard to follow max_segments restrictions then.

> Probably no such devices, but we need to be prepared.

Right, question is how to handle this.

> > 
> > > This commit looks good to me, thanks Xie Yongji.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> > > 
> > > > > To fix it, let's simply
> > > > > remove the BUG_ON() which has become unnecessary after commit
> > > > > 02746e26c39e("virtio-blk: avoid preallocating big SGL for data").
> > > > > And the unused vblk->sg_elems can also be removed together.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
> > > > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 +---------
> > > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > index c443cd64fc9b..a43eb1813cec 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > @@ -76,9 +76,6 @@ struct virtio_blk {
> > > > >    	 */
> > > > >    	refcount_t refs;
> > > > > -	/* What host tells us, plus 2 for header & tailer. */
> > > > > -	unsigned int sg_elems;
> > > > > -
> > > > >    	/* Ida index - used to track minor number allocations. */
> > > > >    	int index;
> > > > > @@ -322,8 +319,6 @@ static blk_status_t virtio_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > > > >    	blk_status_t status;
> > > > >    	int err;
> > > > > -	BUG_ON(req->nr_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
> > > > > -
> > > > >    	status = virtblk_setup_cmd(vblk->vdev, req, vbr);
> > > > >    	if (unlikely(status))
> > > > >    		return status;
> > > > > @@ -783,8 +778,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > >    	/* Prevent integer overflows and honor max vq size */
> > > > >    	sg_elems = min_t(u32, sg_elems, VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS - 2);
> > > > > -	/* We need extra sg elements at head and tail. */
> > > > > -	sg_elems += 2;
> > > > >    	vdev->priv = vblk = kmalloc(sizeof(*vblk), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >    	if (!vblk) {
> > > > >    		err = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > @@ -796,7 +789,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > >    	mutex_init(&vblk->vdev_mutex);
> > > > >    	vblk->vdev = vdev;
> > > > > -	vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems;
> > > > >    	INIT_WORK(&vblk->config_work, virtblk_config_changed_work);
> > > > > @@ -853,7 +845,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > >    		set_disk_ro(vblk->disk, 1);
> > > > >    	/* We can handle whatever the host told us to handle. */
> > > > > -	blk_queue_max_segments(q, vblk->sg_elems-2);
> > > > > +	blk_queue_max_segments(q, sg_elems);
> > > > >    	/* No real sector limit. */
> > > > >    	blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, -1U);
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:45:10PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> On 3/2/2022 3:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 3/2/2022 3:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:51:27AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > On 3/1/2022 5:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > > > > > Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > > > > > > list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > > > > > > However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > > > > > > instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > > > > > > discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > > > > > > virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > > > > > > segment than queue_max_segments().
> > > > > > Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > > > > > exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > > > > > create it?
> > > > > I don't think it's hard to create it. Just change some registers in the
> > > > > device.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But with the dynamic sgl allocation that I added recently, there is no
> > > > > problem with this scenario.
> > > > Well the problem is device says it can't handle such large descriptors,
> > > > I guess it works anyway, but it seems scary.
> > > I don't follow.
> > > 
> > > The only problem this patch solves is when a virtio blk device reports
> > > larger value for max_discard_segments than max_segments.
> > > 
> > No, the peroblem reported is when virtio blk device reports
> > max_segments < 256 but not max_discard_segments.
> 
> You mean the code will work in case device report max_discard_segments  >
> max_segments ?
> 
> I don't think so.

I think it's like this:


        if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD)) {

		....

                virtio_cread(vdev, struct virtio_blk_config, max_discard_seg,
                             &v);
                blk_queue_max_discard_segments(q,
                                               min_not_zero(v,
                                                            MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS));

	}

so, IIUC the case is of a device that sets max_discard_seg to 0.

Which is kind of broken, but we handled this since 2018 so I guess
we'll need to keep doing that.


> This is exactly what Xie Yongji mention in the commit message and what I was
> seeing.
> 
> But the code will work if VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD is not supported by the
> device (even if max_segments < 256) , since blk layer set
> queue_max_discard_segments = 1 in the initialization.
> 
> And the virtio-blk driver won't change it unless VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD is
> supported.
> 
> > I would expect discard to follow max_segments restrictions then.
> > 
> > > Probably no such devices, but we need to be prepared.
> > Right, question is how to handle this.
> > 
> > > > > This commit looks good to me, thanks Xie Yongji.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > To fix it, let's simply
> > > > > > > remove the BUG_ON() which has become unnecessary after commit
> > > > > > > 02746e26c39e("virtio-blk: avoid preallocating big SGL for data").
> > > > > > > And the unused vblk->sg_elems can also be removed together.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
> > > > > > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 +---------
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > index c443cd64fc9b..a43eb1813cec 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > @@ -76,9 +76,6 @@ struct virtio_blk {
> > > > > > >     	 */
> > > > > > >     	refcount_t refs;
> > > > > > > -	/* What host tells us, plus 2 for header & tailer. */
> > > > > > > -	unsigned int sg_elems;
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >     	/* Ida index - used to track minor number allocations. */
> > > > > > >     	int index;
> > > > > > > @@ -322,8 +319,6 @@ static blk_status_t virtio_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > > > > > >     	blk_status_t status;
> > > > > > >     	int err;
> > > > > > > -	BUG_ON(req->nr_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >     	status = virtblk_setup_cmd(vblk->vdev, req, vbr);
> > > > > > >     	if (unlikely(status))
> > > > > > >     		return status;
> > > > > > > @@ -783,8 +778,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > >     	/* Prevent integer overflows and honor max vq size */
> > > > > > >     	sg_elems = min_t(u32, sg_elems, VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS - 2);
> > > > > > > -	/* We need extra sg elements at head and tail. */
> > > > > > > -	sg_elems += 2;
> > > > > > >     	vdev->priv = vblk = kmalloc(sizeof(*vblk), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > >     	if (!vblk) {
> > > > > > >     		err = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > @@ -796,7 +789,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > >     	mutex_init(&vblk->vdev_mutex);
> > > > > > >     	vblk->vdev = vdev;
> > > > > > > -	vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems;
> > > > > > >     	INIT_WORK(&vblk->config_work, virtblk_config_changed_work);
> > > > > > > @@ -853,7 +845,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > >     		set_disk_ro(vblk->disk, 1);
> > > > > > >     	/* We can handle whatever the host told us to handle. */
> > > > > > > -	blk_queue_max_segments(q, vblk->sg_elems-2);
> > > > > > > +	blk_queue_max_segments(q, sg_elems);
> > > > > > >     	/* No real sector limit. */
> > > > > > >     	blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, -1U);
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > 2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> On 3/2/2022 4:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:45:10PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 3/2/2022 3:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > On 3/2/2022 3:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:51:27AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > > > On 3/1/2022 5:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > > > > > > > > list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > > > > > > > > However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > > > > > > > > instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > > > > > > > > discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > > > > > > > > virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > > > > > > > > segment than queue_max_segments().
> > > > > > > > Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > > > > > > > exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > > > > > > > create it?
> > > > > > > I don't think it's hard to create it. Just change some registers in the
> > > > > > > device.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But with the dynamic sgl allocation that I added recently, there is no
> > > > > > > problem with this scenario.
> > > > > > Well the problem is device says it can't handle such large descriptors,
> > > > > > I guess it works anyway, but it seems scary.
> > > > > I don't follow.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The only problem this patch solves is when a virtio blk device reports
> > > > > larger value for max_discard_segments than max_segments.
> > > > > 
> > > > No, the peroblem reported is when virtio blk device reports
> > > > max_segments < 256 but not max_discard_segments.
> > > You mean the code will work in case device report max_discard_segments  >
> > > max_segments ?
> > > 
> > > I don't think so.
> > I think it's like this:
> > 
> > 
> >          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD)) {
> > 
> > 		....
> > 
> >                  virtio_cread(vdev, struct virtio_blk_config, max_discard_seg,
> >                               &v);
> >                  blk_queue_max_discard_segments(q,
> >                                                 min_not_zero(v,
> >                                                              MAX_DISCARD_SEGMENTS));
> > 
> > 	}
> > 
> > so, IIUC the case is of a device that sets max_discard_seg to 0.
> > 
> > Which is kind of broken, but we handled this since 2018 so I guess
> > we'll need to keep doing that.
> 
> A device can't state VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD and set max_discard_seg to 0.
> 
> If so, it's a broken device and we can add a quirk for it.

Well we already have min_not_zero there, presumably for some reason.

> Do you have such device to test ?

Xie Yongji mentioned he does.

> > 
> > > This is exactly what Xie Yongji mention in the commit message and what I was
> > > seeing.
> > > 
> > > But the code will work if VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD is not supported by the
> > > device (even if max_segments < 256) , since blk layer set
> > > queue_max_discard_segments = 1 in the initialization.
> > > 
> > > And the virtio-blk driver won't change it unless VIRTIO_BLK_F_DISCARD is
> > > supported.
> > > 
> > > > I would expect discard to follow max_segments restrictions then.
> > > > 
> > > > > Probably no such devices, but we need to be prepared.
> > > > Right, question is how to handle this.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > This commit looks good to me, thanks Xie Yongji.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > To fix it, let's simply
> > > > > > > > > remove the BUG_ON() which has become unnecessary after commit
> > > > > > > > > 02746e26c39e("virtio-blk: avoid preallocating big SGL for data").
> > > > > > > > > And the unused vblk->sg_elems can also be removed together.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
> > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >      drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 +---------
> > > > > > > > >      1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > index c443cd64fc9b..a43eb1813cec 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -76,9 +76,6 @@ struct virtio_blk {
> > > > > > > > >      	 */
> > > > > > > > >      	refcount_t refs;
> > > > > > > > > -	/* What host tells us, plus 2 for header & tailer. */
> > > > > > > > > -	unsigned int sg_elems;
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >      	/* Ida index - used to track minor number allocations. */
> > > > > > > > >      	int index;
> > > > > > > > > @@ -322,8 +319,6 @@ static blk_status_t virtio_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > > > > > > > >      	blk_status_t status;
> > > > > > > > >      	int err;
> > > > > > > > > -	BUG_ON(req->nr_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >      	status = virtblk_setup_cmd(vblk->vdev, req, vbr);
> > > > > > > > >      	if (unlikely(status))
> > > > > > > > >      		return status;
> > > > > > > > > @@ -783,8 +778,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > > >      	/* Prevent integer overflows and honor max vq size */
> > > > > > > > >      	sg_elems = min_t(u32, sg_elems, VIRTIO_BLK_MAX_SG_ELEMS - 2);
> > > > > > > > > -	/* We need extra sg elements at head and tail. */
> > > > > > > > > -	sg_elems += 2;
> > > > > > > > >      	vdev->priv = vblk = kmalloc(sizeof(*vblk), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > > > >      	if (!vblk) {
> > > > > > > > >      		err = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > > @@ -796,7 +789,6 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > > >      	mutex_init(&vblk->vdev_mutex);
> > > > > > > > >      	vblk->vdev = vdev;
> > > > > > > > > -	vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems;
> > > > > > > > >      	INIT_WORK(&vblk->config_work, virtblk_config_changed_work);
> > > > > > > > > @@ -853,7 +845,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > > >      		set_disk_ro(vblk->disk, 1);
> > > > > > > > >      	/* We can handle whatever the host told us to handle. */
> > > > > > > > > -	blk_queue_max_segments(q, vblk->sg_elems-2);
> > > > > > > > > +	blk_queue_max_segments(q, sg_elems);
> > > > > > > > >      	/* No real sector limit. */
> > > > > > > > >      	blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, -1U);
> > > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > > 2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk: Remove BUG_ON() in virtio_queue_rq()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:53:17PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:33 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/2/2022 3:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:51:27AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > > > On 3/1/2022 5:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:57:20PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > > > > > Currently we have a BUG_ON() to make sure the number of sg
> > > > > > > list does not exceed queue_max_segments() in virtio_queue_rq().
> > > > > > > However, the block layer uses queue_max_discard_segments()
> > > > > > > instead of queue_max_segments() to limit the sg list for
> > > > > > > discard requests. So the BUG_ON() might be triggered if
> > > > > > > virtio-blk device reports a larger value for max discard
> > > > > > > segment than queue_max_segments().
> > > > > > Hmm the spec does not say what should happen if max_discard_seg
> > > > > > exceeds seg_max. Is this the config you have in mind? how do you
> > > > > > create it?
> > > > > I don't think it's hard to create it. Just change some registers in the
> > > > > device.
> > > > >
> > > > > But with the dynamic sgl allocation that I added recently, there is no
> > > > > problem with this scenario.
> > > > Well the problem is device says it can't handle such large descriptors,
> > > > I guess it works anyway, but it seems scary.
> > >
> > > I don't follow.
> > >
> > > The only problem this patch solves is when a virtio blk device reports
> > > larger value for max_discard_segments than max_segments.
> > >
> >
> > No, the peroblem reported is when virtio blk device reports
> > max_segments < 256 but not max_discard_segments.
> > I would expect discard to follow max_segments restrictions then.
> >
> 
> I think one point is whether we want to allow the corner case that the
> device reports a larger value for max_discard_segments than
> max_segments. For example, queue size is 256, max_segments is 128 - 2,
> max_discard_segments is 256 - 2.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yongji

So if device specifies that, then I guess it's fine and from that POV
the patch is correct.  But I think the issue is when device specifies 0
which we interpret as 256 with no basis in hardware.

-- 
MST

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization