On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:49:12 -0700 Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:02 AM Mariusz Tkaczyk > <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > During working on changes proposed by Kuai [1], I determined that > > mddev->active is continusly decremented for array marked by MD_CLOSING. > > It brought me to md_seq_next() changed by [2]. I determined the regression > > here, if mddev_get() fails we updated mddev pointer and as a result we > > _put failed device. > > > > I isolated the change in md_seq_next() and tested it- issue is no longer > > reproducible but I don't see the root cause in this scenario. The bug > > is obvious so I proceed with fixing. I will submit MD_CLOSING patches > > separatelly. > > > > Put the device which has been _get with previous md_seq_next() call. > > Add guard for inproper mddev_put usage(). It shouldn't be called if > > there are less than 1 for mddev->active. > > > > I didn't convert atomic_t to refcount_t because refcount warns when 0 is > > achieved which is likely to happen for mddev->active. > > > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-raid/028a21df-4397-80aa-c2a5-7c754560f595@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m6a534677d9654a4236623661c10646d45419ee1b > > [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217798 > > > > Fixes: 12a6caf27324 ("md: only delete entries from all_mddevs when the disk > > is freed") Cc: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: AceLan Kao <acelan@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/md/md.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > > index 0fe7ab6e8ab9..bb654ff62765 100644 > > --- a/drivers/md/md.c > > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > > @@ -618,6 +618,12 @@ static void mddev_delayed_delete(struct work_struct > > *ws); > > > > void mddev_put(struct mddev *mddev) > > { > > + /* Guard for ambiguous put. */ > > + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&mddev->active) < 1)) { > > + pr_warn("%s: active refcount is lower than 1\n", > > mdname(mddev)); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > Could you please explain why we need this guard? We should probably fix > the caller that causes this. We have an issue, so I added warning to catch similar mistakes. Please note that for refcount_t such warning is implemented. If you don't see it useful I can remove it. > > > if (!atomic_dec_and_lock(&mddev->active, &all_mddevs_lock)) > > return; > > if (!mddev->raid_disks && list_empty(&mddev->disks) && > > @@ -8227,19 +8233,16 @@ static void *md_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void > > *v, loff_t *pos) { > > struct list_head *tmp; > > struct mddev *next_mddev, *mddev = v; > > - struct mddev *to_put = NULL; > > IIUC, all we need is the following: > > diff --git i/drivers/md/md.c w/drivers/md/md.c > index 73758b754127..a104a025084d 100644 > --- i/drivers/md/md.c > +++ w/drivers/md/md.c > @@ -8265,7 +8265,7 @@ static void *md_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, > void *v, loff_t *pos) > spin_unlock(&all_mddevs_lock); > > if (to_put) > - mddev_put(mddev); > + mddev_put(to_put); > return next_mddev; > > } > > Is this sufficient? If so, how about we ship this first and refactor > the code later > in a separate patch? That is correct it should be sufficient. If you don't want it in one patch I will drop refactor because Kuai re-implemented it already. Anyway, changes I made are simple and tested, I don't see it risk in it. Your proposal will make merge conflicts less likely to appear. I that matters I can simplify the patch. Please let me know what you think, then I will send v3. Thanks, Mariusz
