Hi Bart,
On 18/2/3 00:21, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 09:02 +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>> We triggered this race when using single queue. I'm not sure if it
>> exists in multi-queue.
>
> Regarding the races between modifying the queue_lock pointer and the code that
> uses that pointer, I think the following construct in blk_cleanup_queue() is
> sufficient to avoid races between the queue_lock pointer assignment and the code
> that executes concurrently with blk_cleanup_queue():
>
> spin_lock_irq(lock);
> if (q->queue_lock != &q->__queue_lock)
> q->queue_lock = &q->__queue_lock;
> spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>
IMO, the race also exists.
blk_cleanup_queue blkcg_print_blkgs
spin_lock_irq(lock) (1) spin_lock_irq(blkg->q->queue_lock) (2,5)
q->queue_lock = &q->__queue_lock (3)
spin_unlock_irq(lock) (4)
spin_unlock_irq(blkg->q->queue_lock) (6)
(1) take driver lock;
(2) busy loop for driver lock;
(3) override driver lock with internal lock;
(4) unlock driver lock;
(5) can take driver lock now;
(6) but unlock internal lock.
If we get blkg->q->queue_lock to local first like blk_cleanup_queue,
it indeed can fix the different lock use in lock/unlock. But since
blk_cleanup_queue has overridden queue lock to internal lock now, I'm
afraid we couldn't still use driver lock in blkcg_print_blkgs.
Thanks,
Joseph
> In other words, I think that this patch series should be sufficient to address
> all races between .queue_lock assignments and the code that uses that pointer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>