On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:11:14PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 29-05-20 11:43:00, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:04:48AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Fri 29-05-20 08:00:56, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > On Thu 28-05-20 18:43:33, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:31:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu 28-05-20 07:44:38, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > > > > (+Luis)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2020-05-28 02:29, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Mostly for historical reasons, q->blk_trace is assigned through xchg()
> > > > > > > > > and cmpxchg() atomic operations. Although this is correct, sparse
> > > > > > > > > complains about this because it violates rcu annotations. Furthermore
> > > > > > > > > there's no real need for atomic operations anymore since all changes to
> > > > > > > > > q->blk_trace happen under q->blk_trace_mutex. So let's just replace
> > > > > > > > > xchg() with rcu_replace_pointer() and cmpxchg() with explicit check and
> > > > > > > > > rcu_assign_pointer(). This makes the code more efficient and sparse
> > > > > > > > > happy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about adding a reference to commit c780e86dd48e ("blktrace: Protect
> > > > > > > > q->blk_trace with RCU") in the description of this patch?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's probably a good idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @@ -1669,10 +1672,7 @@ static int blk_trace_setup_queue(struct request_queue *q,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > blk_trace_setup_lba(bt, bdev);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - ret = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > > > - if (cmpxchg(&q->blk_trace, NULL, bt))
> > > > > > > > > - goto free_bt;
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > + rcu_assign_pointer(q->blk_trace, bt);
> > > > > > > > > get_probe_ref();
> > > > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This changes a conditional assignment of q->blk_trace into an
> > > > > > > > unconditional assignment. Shouldn't q->blk_trace only be assigned if
> > > > > > > > q->blk_trace == NULL?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes but both callers of blk_trace_setup_queue() actually check that
> > > > > > > q->blk_trace is NULL before calling blk_trace_setup_queue() and since we
> > > > > > > hold blk_trace_mutex all the time, the value of q->blk_trace cannot change.
> > > > > > > So the conditional assignment was just bogus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you run a blktrace against a different partition the check does have
> > > > > > an effect today. This is because the request_queue is shared between
> > > > > > partitions implicitly, even though they end up using a different struct
> > > > > > dentry. So the check is actually still needed, however my change adds
> > > > > > this check early as well so we don't do a memory allocation just to
> > > > > > throw it away.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure we are speaking about the same check but I might be missing
> > > > > something. blk_trace_setup_queue() is only called from
> > > > > sysfs_blk_trace_attr_store(). That does:
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_lock(&q->blk_trace_mutex);
> > > > >
> > > > > bt = rcu_dereference_protected(q->blk_trace,
> > > > > lockdep_is_held(&q->blk_trace_mutex));
> > > > > if (attr == &dev_attr_enable) {
> > > > > if (!!value == !!bt) {
> > > > > ret = 0;
> > > > > goto out_unlock_bdev;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > ^^^ So if 'bt' is non-NULL, and we are enabling, we bail
> > > > > instead of calling blk_trace_setup_queue().
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly later:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (bt == NULL) {
> > > > > ret = blk_trace_setup_queue(q, bdev);
> > > > > ...
> > > > > so we again call blk_trace_setup_queue() only if bt is NULL. So IMO the
> > > > > cmpxchg() in blk_trace_setup_queue() could never fail to set the value.
> > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > >
> > > > I believe we are talking about the same check indeed. Consider the
> > > > situation not as a race, but instead consider the state machine of
> > > > the ioctl. The BLKTRACESETUP goes first, and when that is over we
> > > > have not ran BLKTRACESTART. So, prior to BLKTRACESTART we can have
> > > > another BLKTRACESETUP run but against another partition.
> > >
> > > So first note that BLKTRACESETUP goes through do_blk_trace_setup() while
> > > 'echo 1 >/sys/block/../trace/enable' goes through blk_trace_setup_queue().
> > > Although these operations achieve a very similar things, they are completely
> > > separate code paths. I was speaking about the second case while you are now
> > > speaking about the first one.
> > >
> > > WRT to your BLKTRACESETUP example, the first BLKTRACESETUP will end up
> > > setting q->blk_trace to 'bt' so the second BLKTRACESETUP will see
> > > q->blk_trace is not NULL (my patch adds this check to do_blk_trace_setup()
> > > so we bail out earlier than during cmpxchg()) and fails. Again I don't see
> > > any problem here...
> >
> > Ah, the patch I was CC'd on didn't contain this hunk! It only had the
> > change from cmpxchg() to the rcu_assign_pointer(), so I misunderstood
> > your intention, sorry!
>
> Good that we are on the same page now :)
Yay!
> > In that case, I already proposed a patch to do that, and it also adds
> > a tiny bit of verbiage given we currently don't inform the user about
> > why this fails [0].
>
> Honestly, I'm not sure pr_warn() you've added is that useful. We usually
> don't spam logs due to someone trying to use already used resource. But
> anyway, I can see other people are fine with that so I don't insist.
Well I would typically agree... however...
It is in no way shape or form, not even in the blktrace documentation
that the request_queue / and therefore blktrace is shared between
partitions. Likewise for scsi-generic and say its respective block
device for TYPE_BLOCK.
If it is not obvious to some developer, it won't be obvious to users.
So *why* this fails really today is a mystery to users.
These limitations to the design of blktrace is not well documented
at all.
> > Let me know how you folks would like to proceed.
>
> I guess I can rebase my patch on top of your series since that seems pretty
> much done.
I think so as well.
> I was aware of it but didn't realize there's a conflict...
Thanks for Bart for pointing it out!
Luis
