On 2/22/19 2:10 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15 2018 at 4:09am -0500,
> NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> If two bios are chained under the one parent (with bio_chain())
>> it is possible that one will succeed and the other will fail.
>> __bio_chain_endio must ensure that the failure error status
>> is reported for the whole, rather than the success.
>>
>> It currently tries to be careful, but this test is racy.
>> If both children finish at the same time, they might both see that
>> parent->bi_status as zero, and so will assign their own status.
>> If the assignment to parent->bi_status by the successful bio happens
>> last, the error status will be lost which can lead to silent data
>> corruption.
>>
>> Instead, __bio_chain_endio should only assign a non-zero status
>> to parent->bi_status. There is then no need to test the current
>> value of parent->bi_status - a test that would be racy anyway.
>>
>> Note that this bug hasn't been seen in practice. It was only discovered
>> by examination after a similar bug was found in dm.c
>>
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> block/bio.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
>> index e1708db48258..ad77140edc6f 100644
>> --- a/block/bio.c
>> +++ b/block/bio.c
>> @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ static struct bio *__bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
>> {
>> struct bio *parent = bio->bi_private;
>>
>> - if (!parent->bi_status)
>> + if (bio->bi_status)
>> parent->bi_status = bio->bi_status;
>> bio_put(bio);
>> return parent;
>> --
>> 2.14.0.rc0.dirty
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Jens, this one slipped through the crack just over a year ago.
> It is available in patchwork here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10220727/
Should this be:
if (!parent->bi_status && bio->bi_status)
parent->bi_status = bio->bi_status;
perhaps?
--
Jens Axboe
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
