On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:48:06AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 03/07/2017 08:23 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Hannes,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2017 06:22 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> Hello Johannes,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:23:35AM +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> >>>> zram can handle at most SECTORS_PER_PAGE sectors in a bio's bvec. When using
> >>>> the NVMe over Fabrics loopback target which potentially sends a huge bulk of
> >>>> pages attached to the bio's bvec this results in a kernel panic because of
> >>>> array out of bounds accesses in zram_decompress_page().
> >>>
> >>> First of all, thanks for the report and fix up!
> >>> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that interface of block layer.
> >>>
> >>> It seems this is a material for stable so I want to understand it clear.
> >>> Could you say more specific things to educate me?
> >>>
> >>> What scenario/When/How it is problem? It will help for me to understand!
> >>>
> >
> > Thanks for the quick response!
> >
> >> The problem is that zram as it currently stands can only handle bios
> >> where each bvec contains a single page (or, to be precise, a chunk of
> >> data with a length of a page).
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >>
> >> This is not an automatic guarantee from the block layer (who is free to
> >> send us bios with arbitrary-sized bvecs), so we need to set the queue
> >> limits to ensure that.
> >
> > What does it mean "bios with arbitrary-sized bvecs"?
> > What kinds of scenario is it used/useful?
> >
> Each bio contains a list of bvecs, each of which points to a specific
> memory area:
>
> struct bio_vec {
> struct page *bv_page;
> unsigned int bv_len;
> unsigned int bv_offset;
> };
>
> The trick now is that while 'bv_page' does point to a page, the memory
> area pointed to might in fact be contiguous (if several pages are
> adjacent). Hence we might be getting a bio_vec where bv_len is _larger_
> than a page.
Thanks for detail, Hannes!
If I understand it correctly, it seems to be related to bid_add_page
with high-order page. Right?
If so, I really wonder why I don't see such problem because several
places have used it and I expected some of them might do IO with
contiguous pages intentionally or by chance. Hmm,
IIUC, it's not a nvme specific problme but general problem which
can trigger normal FSes if they uses contiguos pages?
>
> Hence the check for 'is_partial_io' in zram_drv.c (which just does a
> test 'if bv_len != PAGE_SIZE) is in fact wrong, as it would trigger for
> partial I/O (ie if the overall length of the bio_vec is _smaller_ than a
> page), but also for multipage bvecs (where the length of the bio_vec is
> _larger_ than a page).
Right. I need to look into that. Thanks for the pointing out!
>
> So rather than fixing the bio scanning loop in zram it's easier to set
> the queue limits correctly so that 'is_partial_io' does the correct
> thing and the overall logic in zram doesn't need to be altered.
Isn't that approach require new bio allocation through blk_queue_split?
Maybe, it wouldn't make severe regression in zram-FS workload but need
to test.
Is there any ways to trigger the problem without real nvme device?
It would really help to test/measure zram.
Anyway, to me, it's really subtle at this moment so I doubt it should
be stable material. :(
