mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Hemment <markhe@veritas.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] 4GB I/O, cut three
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:03:02 +0100 (BST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105301348370.7153-100000@alloc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010529160704.N26871@suse.de>

Hi again, :)

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Another day, another version.
> 
> Bugs fixed in this version: none
> Known bugs in this version: none
> 
> In other words, it's perfect of course.

  With the scsi-high patch, I'm not sure about the removal of the line
from __scsi_end_request();

	req->buffer = bh->b_data;

  A requeued request is not always processed immediately, so new
buffer-heads arriving at the block-layer can be merged against it.  A
requeued request is placed at the head of a request list, so
nothing can merge with it - but what about if multiple requests are
requeued on the same queue?

  In Linus's tree, requests requeued via the SCSI layer can cause problems
(corruption).  I sent out a patch to cover this a few months back, which
got picked up by Alan (its in the -ac series - see the changes to
scsi_lib.c and scsi_merge.c) but no one posted any feedback.
  I've included some of the original message below.

Mark


------------------------------------------------------------------
>From markhe@veritas.com Sat Mar 31 16:07:14 2001 +0100
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:07:13 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark Hemment <markhe@veritas.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Possible SCSI + block-layer bugs

Hi,

  I've never seen these trigger, but they look theoretically possible.

  When processing the completion of a SCSI request in a bottom-half,
__scsi_end_request() can find all the buffers associated with the request
haven't been completed (ie. leftovers).

  One question is; can this ever happen?
  If it can't then the code should be removed from __scsi_end_request(),
if it can happen then there appears to be a few problems;

  The request is re-queued to the block layer via 
scsi_queue_next_request(), which uses the "special" pointer in the request
structure to remember the Scsi_Cmnd associated with the request.  The SCSI
request function is then called, but doesn't guarantee to immediately
process the re-queued request even though it was added at the head (say,
the queue has become plugged).  This can trigger two possible bugs.

  The first is that __scsi_end_request() doesn't decrement the
hard_nr_sectors count in the request.  As the request is back on the
queue, it is possible for newly arriving buffer-heads to merge with the
heads already hanging off the request.  This merging uses the
hard_nr_sectors when calculating both the merged hard_nr_sectors and
nr_sectors counts.
  As the request is at the head, only back-merging can occur, but if
__scsi_end_request() triggers another uncompleted request to be re-queued,
it is possible to get front merging as well.

  The merging of a re-queued request looks safe, except for the
hard_nr_sectors.  This patch corrects the hard_nr_sectors accounting.


  The second bug is from request merging in attempt_merge().

  For a re-queued request, the request structure is the one embedded in
the Scsi_Cmnd (which is a copy of the request taken in the 
scsi_request_fn).
  In attempt_merge(), q->merge_requests_fn() is called to see the requests
are allowed to merge.  __scsi_merge_requests_fn() checks number of
segments, etc, but doesn't check if one of the requests is a re-queued one
(ie. no test against ->special).
  This can lead to attempt_merge() releasing the embedded request
structure (which, as an extract copy, has the ->q set, so to
blkdev_release_request() it looks like a request which originated from
the block layer).  This isn't too healthy.

  The fix here is to add a check in __scsi_merge_requests_fn() to check
for ->special being non-NULL.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-05-30 13:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-29 14:07 Jens Axboe
2001-05-29 14:11 ` Jens Axboe
2001-05-30  9:43 ` Mark Hemment
2001-05-30  9:55   ` Jens Axboe
2001-05-30 10:59     ` Mark Hemment
2001-05-30 14:26       ` andrea
2001-05-30 18:42         ` Rik van Riel
2001-05-30 18:57           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-30 18:57           ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2001-05-30 19:18             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-30 19:23               ` Rik van Riel
2001-05-30 14:00     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-30 14:06       ` Jens Axboe
2001-05-30 18:36     ` Rik van Riel
2001-05-30 13:03 ` Mark Hemment [this message]
2001-05-30 13:24   ` Jens Axboe
2001-05-30 13:37     ` Mark Hemment
2001-05-30 13:40       ` Jens Axboe

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=Pine.LNX.4.21.0105301348370.7153-100000@alloc \
    --to=markhe@veritas.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®