On Fri, 2020-01-31 at 10:50 +0100, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 4:39 PM Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/30/20 3:26 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 12:42 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > > The object request list can be accessed from various contexts
> > > > so we need to lock it to avoid concurrent modifications and
> > > > random crashes.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/block/rbd.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> > > > index 5710b2a8609c..ddc170661607 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> > > > @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ struct rbd_img_request {
> > > >
> > > > struct list_head lock_item;
> > > > struct list_head object_extents; /* obj_req.ex
> > > > structs */
> > > > + struct mutex object_mutex;
> > > >
> > > > struct mutex state_mutex;
> > > > struct pending_result pending;
> > > > @@ -1664,6 +1665,7 @@ static struct rbd_img_request
> > > > *rbd_img_request_create(
> > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&img_request->lock_item);
> > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&img_request->object_extents);
> > > > mutex_init(&img_request->state_mutex);
> > > > + mutex_init(&img_request->object_mutex);
> > > > kref_init(&img_request->kref);
> > > >
> > > > return img_request;
> > > > @@ -1680,8 +1682,10 @@ static void
> > > > rbd_img_request_destroy(struct
> > > > kref *kref)
> > > > dout("%s: img %p\n", __func__, img_request);
> > > >
> > > > WARN_ON(!list_empty(&img_request->lock_item));
> > > > + mutex_lock(&img_request->object_mutex);
> > > > for_each_obj_request_safe(img_request, obj_request,
> > > > next_obj_request)
> > > > rbd_img_obj_request_del(img_request, obj_request);
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_request->object_mutex);
> > > >
> > > > if (img_request_layered_test(img_request)) {
> > > > img_request_layered_clear(img_request);
> > > > @@ -2486,6 +2490,7 @@ static int __rbd_img_fill_request(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req)
> > > > struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req, *next_obj_req;
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > + mutex_lock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > for_each_obj_request_safe(img_req, obj_req, next_obj_req)
> > > > {
> > > > switch (img_req->op_type) {
> > > > case OBJ_OP_READ:
> > > > @@ -2510,7 +2515,7 @@ static int __rbd_img_fill_request(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req)
> > > > continue;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > -
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > img_req->state = RBD_IMG_START;
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -2569,6 +2574,7 @@ static int
> > > > rbd_img_fill_request_nocopy(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req,
> > > > * position in the provided bio (list) or bio_vec array.
> > > > */
> > > > fctx->iter = *fctx->pos;
> > > > + mutex_lock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > for (i = 0; i < num_img_extents; i++) {
> > > > ret = ceph_file_to_extents(&img_req->rbd_dev-
> > > > >layout,
> > > > img_extents[i].fe_off,
> > > > @@ -2576,10 +2582,12 @@ static int
> > > > rbd_img_fill_request_nocopy(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req,
> > > > &img_req-
> > > > >object_extents,
> > > > alloc_object_extent,
> > > > img_req,
> > > > fctx->set_pos_fn,
> > > > &fctx-
> > > > > iter);
> > > >
> > > > - if (ret)
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > > -
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > return __rbd_img_fill_request(img_req);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -2620,6 +2628,7 @@ static int rbd_img_fill_request(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req,
> > > > * or bio_vec array because when mapped, those bio_vecs
> > > > can
> > > > straddle
> > > > * stripe unit boundaries.
> > > > */
> > > > + mutex_lock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > fctx->iter = *fctx->pos;
> > > > for (i = 0; i < num_img_extents; i++) {
> > > > ret = ceph_file_to_extents(&rbd_dev->layout,
> > > > @@ -2629,15 +2638,17 @@ static int rbd_img_fill_request(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req,
> > > > alloc_object_extent,
> > > > img_req,
> > > > fctx->count_fn, &fctx-
> > > > > iter);
> > > >
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > - return ret;
> > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > for_each_obj_request(img_req, obj_req) {
> > > > obj_req->bvec_pos.bvecs = kmalloc_array(obj_req-
> > > > > bvec_count,
> > > >
> > > > sizeof(*obj_req-
> > > > > bvec_pos.bvecs),
> > > >
> > > > GFP_NOIO);
> > > > - if (!obj_req->bvec_pos.bvecs)
> > > > - return -ENOMEM;
> > > > + if (!obj_req->bvec_pos.bvecs) {
> > > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -2652,10 +2663,14 @@ static int rbd_img_fill_request(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req,
> > > > &img_req-
> > > > >object_extents,
> > > > fctx->copy_fn, &fctx-
> > > > >iter);
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > - return ret;
> > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > > }
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > >
> > > > return __rbd_img_fill_request(img_req);
> > > > +out_unlock:
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static int rbd_img_fill_nodata(struct rbd_img_request
> > > > *img_req,
> > > > @@ -3552,6 +3567,7 @@ static void
> > > > rbd_img_object_requests(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req)
> > > >
> > > > rbd_assert(!img_req->pending.result && !img_req-
> > > > > pending.num_pending);
> > > >
> > > > + mutex_lock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > for_each_obj_request(img_req, obj_req) {
> > > > int result = 0;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3564,6 +3580,7 @@ static void
> > > > rbd_img_object_requests(struct
> > > > rbd_img_request *img_req)
> > > > img_req->pending.num_pending++;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static bool rbd_img_advance(struct rbd_img_request *img_req,
> > > > int
> > > > *result)
> > >
> > > Looks good to me. Just wonder how we escaped this for so long.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Laurence Oberman <loberman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> >
> > The whole state machine is utterly fragile.
> > I'll be posting a patchset to clean stuff up somewhat,
> > but it's still a beast.
>
> What do you want me to do about this patch then?
>
> > I'm rather surprised that it doesn't break more often ...
>
> If you or Laurence saw it break, I would appreciate the details.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ilya
>
That is what I mentioned when I reviewed it.
While I understand Hannes's patch and it looked right to me, here in
support, I have not seen any reported cases of panics so was wondering
how it escaped me so far.
Regards
Laurence
