Re: [BUG] BLKZEROOUT on dm-crypt container cause OOM / kernel panic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Never mind, I guess I was wrong, coz bio_add_page() is always called
with "offset" = 0 here, so:

offset == bv->bv_offset + bv->bv_len

is never matched. Hence,

if (bio->bi_vcnt >= bio->bi_max_vecs)
return 0;

will trigger the if-break.

So maybe this is after all just a dm-crypt issue on handling multiple
bios created with next_bio (a bio chain)?

On 10 August 2017 at 07:27, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I haven't really tested but I was aware of the commit before I send my
> last email. It doesn't seem relevant to be honest, because it doesn't
> change the fact that the inner loop wil only end if the whole request
> has been looped over. So still one big bio.
>
> There are a few things that seem suspicious to me. First of all, the
> inner loop has an if-break at its end that seem to practically do
> nothing, especially in terms of making the inner loop end when the bio
> reach its expected size (BIO_MAX_PAGES?).
>
> bi_size = bio_add_page(bio, ZERO_PAGE(0), sz, 0);
>
> If you take a look at bio_add_page():
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/block/bio.c?h=v4.13-rc4#n820
>
> it will basically always return "len", which is "sz" here, unchanged.
>
> if (bi_size < sz)
> break;
>
> So this pretty much never happens, with two exceptions:
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bio_flagged(bio, BIO_CLONED)))
> return 0;
>
> which is most likely irrelevant in this case,
>
> if (bio->bi_vcnt >= bio->bi_max_vecs)
> return 0;
>
> which seem to matter in this case. However:
>
> if (page == bv->bv_page &&
> offset == bv->bv_offset + bv->bv_len) {
> bv->bv_len += len;
> goto done;
> }
> ...
> if (bio->bi_vcnt >= bio->bi_max_vecs)
> return 0;
> ...
> bio->bi_vcnt++;
> done:
> bio->bi_iter.bi_size += len;
> return len;
>
> So if the first condition in the above quote is matched, the exception
> would never happen either.
>
> On 9 August 2017 at 21:38, hch@xxxxxx <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Does commit 615d22a51c04856efe62af6e1d5b450aaf5cc2c0
>> "block: Fix __blkdev_issue_zeroout loop" fix the issue for you?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux