From: Tao Cui <cui.tao@linux.dev>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: cuitao@kylinos.cn, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cui.tao@linux.dev
Subject: [PATCH] loop: defer the queue limits clear to a workqueue
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:20:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260924102027.2307044-1-cui.tao@linux.dev> (raw)
From: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
loop_clear_limits() calls queue_limits_commit_update() directly from
the loop workqueue that processes the request. That does a
non-atomic struct assignment to q->limits without freezing the queue,
which races with lockless readers of q->limits on other CPUs - bio
splitting reads max_hw_sectors, the discard path reads
max_hw_discard_sectors - and can let them observe torn values. The
trigger is a discard or write-zeroes request on a loop device whose
backing file does not support the corresponding fallocate operation.
The code already has an XXX comment saying this should move to a
workqueue. Do that: schedule a work item on the system workqueue, where
it is safe to freeze the queue around the limits update. The pending
modes and the rebind generation live under a new mutex,
lo->clear_limits_lock. The work item takes the mutex with the queue
frozen and holds it over the limits commit, so a rebind cannot slip
in between the generation check and the commit. Rebinding the
device drops the accumulated modes and invalidates an already
scheduled work item, so a stale clear cannot hit the new backing
file. The work item is cancelled before the device is freed.
Suggested-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Signed-off-by: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
---
Changes since v4:
- Rebase onto the current block tree as a single commit.
- Hold clear_limits_lock over the limits commit in the work item.
The queue freeze is counted, not mutually exclusive, so
loop_change_fd() could rebind between the generation check and
the commit, and a stale clear could disable discard and write
zeroes on the new backing file.
Changes since v3:
- Replace the three atomic variables (clear_limits_mode, rebind_gen,
clear_limits_gen) with plain variables protected by a new
clear_limits_lock mutex, as suggested by Bart. The mutex is taken
after the queue freeze in the work item, which keeps the same
freeze -> mutex ordering as loop_change_fd(), the only rebinding
path that freezes the queue.
Changes since v2:
- Skip the clear when the device was rebound since the work item
was scheduled: the modes used to be captured before the freeze,
so a LOOP_CHANGE_FD completing in between could apply the old
modes to the new backing file. The rebind generation is now
checked with the queue frozen, which excludes loop_change_fd()
because it assigns the new backing file under the same freeze,
so a rebind cannot slip in between the check and the commit.
Cancelling from loop_assign_backing_file() would instead
deadlock on the freeze held by loop_change_fd().
- Also bump the rebind generation from __loop_clr_fd(): unbinding
does not go through loop_assign_backing_file(), so a work item
scheduled before the last close could otherwise commit a stale
clear to the queue limits of the unbound device.
Changes since v1:
- Reset clear_limits_mode when assigning a new backing file, so
stale modes do not clear limits of the new file.
- Cancel the work item from loop_remove() before del_gendisk():
the queue can already be in RCU-delayed freeing when
lo_free_disk() cancels it.
Tested on x86-64 (qemu, vfat-backed loop device): a 30s discard and
reconfigure loop exercises the clear path 288 times, no torn sysfs
reads, no difference against the unpatched kernel.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260828072004.273519-1-cui.tao@linux.dev/
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 758c20678bf6c..0b89036c982ad 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ struct loop_device {
struct list_head rootcg_cmd_list;
struct list_head idle_worker_list;
struct rb_root worker_tree;
+ struct work_struct clear_limits_work;
+ struct mutex clear_limits_lock;
+ unsigned int clear_limits_mode;
+ unsigned int rebind_gen;
+ unsigned int clear_limits_gen;
struct timer_list timer;
bool sysfs_inited;
@@ -222,26 +227,53 @@ static void loop_set_size(struct loop_device *lo, loff_t size)
kobject_uevent(&disk_to_dev(lo->lo_disk)->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE);
}
-static void loop_clear_limits(struct loop_device *lo, int mode)
+static void loop_clear_limits_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
{
+ struct loop_device *lo =
+ container_of(work, struct loop_device, clear_limits_work);
struct queue_limits lim = queue_limits_start_update(lo->lo_queue);
-
- if (mode & FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE)
- lim.max_write_zeroes_sectors = 0;
-
- if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
- lim.max_hw_discard_sectors = 0;
- lim.discard_granularity = 0;
- }
+ unsigned int memflags;
+ int mode = 0;
/*
- * XXX: this updates the queue limits without freezing the queue, which
- * is against the locking protocol and dangerous. But we can't just
- * freeze the queue as we're inside the ->queue_rq method here. So this
- * should move out into a workqueue unless we get the file operations to
- * advertise if they support specific fallocate operations.
+ * Commit the unmodified limits if the device was rebound since
+ * the work item was scheduled. The freeze does not exclude a
+ * rebind through loop_change_fd(), which freezes the queue
+ * itself, so hold clear_limits_lock over the generation check
+ * and the commit: loop_assign_backing_file() bumps rebind_gen
+ * under the same mutex, so a rebind either precedes the check
+ * or follows the commit, and a stale clear cannot hit the new
+ * backing file. The other rebinding paths, loop_configure()
+ * and __loop_clr_fd(), bump rebind_gen under the same mutex
+ * without freezing the queue; the generation check detects
+ * them as well.
*/
+ memflags = blk_mq_freeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
+ mutex_lock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+ if (lo->clear_limits_gen == lo->rebind_gen) {
+ mode = lo->clear_limits_mode;
+ lo->clear_limits_mode = 0;
+
+ if (mode & FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE)
+ lim.max_write_zeroes_sectors = 0;
+
+ if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
+ lim.max_hw_discard_sectors = 0;
+ lim.discard_granularity = 0;
+ }
+ }
queue_limits_commit_update(lo->lo_queue, &lim);
+ mutex_unlock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+ blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue, memflags);
+}
+
+static void loop_clear_limits(struct loop_device *lo, int mode)
+{
+ mutex_lock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+ lo->clear_limits_gen = lo->rebind_gen;
+ lo->clear_limits_mode |= mode;
+ mutex_unlock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+ schedule_work(&lo->clear_limits_work);
}
static int lo_fallocate(struct loop_device *lo, struct request *rq, loff_t pos,
@@ -518,6 +550,10 @@ static int loop_validate_file(struct file *file, struct block_device *bdev)
static void loop_assign_backing_file(struct loop_device *lo, struct file *file)
{
lo->lo_backing_file = file;
+ mutex_lock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+ lo->rebind_gen++;
+ lo->clear_limits_mode = 0;
+ mutex_unlock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
lo->old_gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(file->f_mapping);
mapping_set_gfp_mask(file->f_mapping,
lo->old_gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS));
@@ -1148,6 +1184,15 @@ static void __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
lo->lo_backing_file = NULL;
spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
+ /*
+ * Invalidate any pending clear that was scheduled against the old
+ * backing file, like loop_assign_backing_file() does on rebind.
+ */
+ mutex_lock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+ lo->rebind_gen++;
+ lo->clear_limits_mode = 0;
+ mutex_unlock(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
+
lo->lo_device = NULL;
lo->lo_offset = 0;
lo->lo_sizelimit = 0;
@@ -1783,7 +1828,9 @@ static void lo_free_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
destroy_workqueue(lo->workqueue);
loop_free_idle_workers(lo, true);
timer_shutdown_sync(&lo->timer);
+ cancel_work_sync(&lo->clear_limits_work);
mutex_destroy(&lo->lo_mutex);
+ mutex_destroy(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
kfree(lo);
}
@@ -2102,6 +2149,8 @@ static int loop_add(int i)
spin_lock_init(&lo->lo_lock);
spin_lock_init(&lo->lo_work_lock);
INIT_WORK(&lo->rootcg_work, loop_rootcg_workfn);
+ INIT_WORK(&lo->clear_limits_work, loop_clear_limits_workfn);
+ mutex_init(&lo->clear_limits_lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lo->rootcg_cmd_list);
disk->major = LOOP_MAJOR;
disk->first_minor = i << part_shift;
@@ -2140,6 +2189,12 @@ static int loop_add(int i)
static void loop_remove(struct loop_device *lo)
{
+ /*
+ * Cancel early: the queue may already be in RCU-delayed freeing
+ * by the time lo_free_disk() cancels the work item.
+ */
+ cancel_work_sync(&lo->clear_limits_work);
+
/* Make this loop device unreachable from pathname. */
del_gendisk(lo->lo_disk);
blk_mq_free_tag_set(&lo->tag_set);
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-09-24 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-24 10:20 Tao Cui [this message]
2026-09-24 10:32 ` Tao Cui
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-08-28 7:20 Tao Cui
2026-08-28 16:34 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-08-31 13:34 ` Tao Cui
2026-08-31 16:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-09-01 13:14 ` Tao Cui
2026-09-01 17:29 ` Bart Van Assche
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=20260924102027.2307044-1-cui.tao@linux.dev \
--to=cui.tao@linux.dev \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cuitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®