On Tue, Jun 09 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:53:51 +0300 > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 06/09/2009 01:44 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > This reverts commit 1cd96c242a829d52f7a5ae98f554ca9775429685. > > > > > > commit 1cd96c242a829d52f7a5ae98f554ca9775429685 > > > Author: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Tue Mar 24 12:35:07 2009 +0100 > > > > > > block: WARN in __blk_put_request() for potential bio leak > > > > > > Put a WARN_ON in __blk_put_request if it is about to > > > leak bio(s). This is a serious bug that can happen in error > > > handling code paths. > > > > > > For this to work I have fixed a couple of places in block/ where > > > request->bio != NULL ownership was not honored. And a small cleanup > > > at sg_io() while at it. > > > > > > > > > With 2.6.30-rc, BSG SMP requests get the following warnings: > > > > > > WARNING: at block/blk-core.c:1068 __blk_put_request+0x52/0xc0() > > > > > > However, this is false. There is no bio leak wrt BSG SMP > > > requests. Probably the better fix is calling blk_end_request_all() in > > > the BSG SMP path. > > > > > > blk_end_request_all() is not very useful for the BSG SMP path (we call > > > it to just unlink rq->bio) however calling blk_end_request_all() in > > > all bio users is consistent. > > > > > > blk_end_request_all() is not available in 2.6.30-rc so seems that the > > > simplest fix is removing WARN_ON for now. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Please do not revert. This is the point of all this. > > > > If there is no leak, You should NULL out the req->bio > > for now, and for 2.6.31 change the code to do > > blk_end_request_all(). That's what blk_end_request does, > > since you are doing your own completion then set req->bio > > to null after you're done. (And before put_request) > > > > This stuff is good for error paths to catch leaks, please > > leave it? > > Has this your good stuff found any bio leak bugs in mainline? In > addition, breaking working code is not a proper development style. That was my original question either, code like this has an ugly tendency to cause unnecessary problems while never catching any bad usage. > Anyway, setting req->bio in bsg works. Either is fine by me. > > > Jens, can you please send either patch to Linus now? Sure, I'll push it out now. There's nothing pending for 2.6.30 ATM. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
