I am perhaps not understanding the intricacies here, or not seeing a
barrier protecting it, so forgive me if I'm off base. I think reading
parent->bi_status here is unsafe.
Consider the following sequence of events on two threads.
Thread 0 Thread 1
In __bio_chain_endio: In __bio_chain_endio:
[A] Child 0 reads parent->bi_status,
no error.
Child bio 1 reads parent, no error seen
It sets parent->bi_status to an error
It calls bio_put.
Child bio 0 calls bio_put
[end __bio_chain_endio] [end __bio_chain_endio]
In bio_chain_endio(), bio_endio(parent)
is called, calling bio_remaining_done()
which decrements __bi_remaining to 1
and returns false, so no further endio
stuff is done.
In bio_chain_endio(), bio_endio(parent)
is called, calling bio_remaining_done(),
decrementing parent->__bi_remaining to
0, and continuing to finish parent.
Either for block tracing or for parent's
bi_end_io(), this thread tries to read
parent->bi_status again.
The compiler or the CPU may cache the read from [A], and since there
are no intervening barriers, parent->bi_status is still believed on
thread 0 to be success. Thus the bio may still be falsely believed to
have completed successfully, even though child 1 set an error in it.
Am I missing a subtlety here?
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
