On 2020-04-15 05:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:14:25AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Btw, Isn't blk_get_queue racy as well? Shouldn't we check
>> blk_queue_dying after getting the reference and undo it if the queue is
>> indeeed dying?
>
> Yes that race should be possible:
>
> bool blk_get_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> {
> if (likely(!blk_queue_dying(q))) {
> ----------> we can get the queue to go dying here <---------
> __blk_get_queue(q);
> return true;
> }
>
> return false;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_get_queue);
>
> I'll pile up a fix. I've also considered doing a full review of callers
> outside of the core block layer using it, and maybe just unexporting
> this. It was originally exported due to commit d86e0e83b ("block: export
> blk_{get,put}_queue()") to fix a scsi bug, but I can't find such
> respective fix. I suspec that using bdgrab()/bdput() seems more likely
> what drivers should be using. That would allow us to keep this
> functionality internal.
blk_get_queue() prevents concurrent freeing of struct request_queue but
does not prevent concurrent blk_cleanup_queue() calls. Callers of
blk_get_queue() may encounter a change of the queue state from normal
into dying any time during the blk_get_queue() call or after
blk_get_queue() has finished. Maybe I'm overlooking something but I
doubt that modifying blk_get_queue() will help.
Bart.
