From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, tj@kernel.org,
david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi: Fix oops in wb_workfn()
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:38:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180521093823.kjj5tk7ko244jv4d@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201805192327.JIF05779.OQFJFStOOMLFVH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Sat 19-05-18 23:27:09, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Make wb_workfn() use wakeup_wb() for requeueing the work which takes all
> > > the necessary precautions against racing with bdi unregistration.
> >
> > Yes, this patch will solve NULL pointer dereference bug. But is it OK to leave
> > list_empty(&wb->work_list) == false situation? Who takes over the role of making
> > list_empty(&wb->work_list) == true?
>
> syzbot is again reporting the same NULL pointer dereference.
>
> general protection fault in wb_workfn (2)
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=e0818ccb7e46190b3f1038b0c794299208ed4206
Gaah... So we are still missing something.
> Didn't we overlook something obvious in commit b8b784958eccbf8f ("bdi:
> Fix oops in wb_workfn()") ?
>
> At first, I thought that that commit will solve NULL pointer dereference bug.
> But what does
>
> if (!list_empty(&wb->work_list))
> - mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0);
> + wb_wakeup(wb);
> else if (wb_has_dirty_io(wb) && dirty_writeback_interval)
> wb_wakeup_delayed(wb);
>
> mean?
>
> static void wb_wakeup(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> {
> spin_lock_bh(&wb->work_lock);
> if (test_bit(WB_registered, &wb->state))
> mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0);
> spin_unlock_bh(&wb->work_lock);
> }
>
> It means nothing but "we don't call mod_delayed_work() if WB_registered
> bit was already cleared".
Exactly.
> But if WB_registered bit is not yet cleared when we hit
> wb_wakeup_delayed() path?
>
> void wb_wakeup_delayed(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> {
> unsigned long timeout;
>
> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> spin_lock_bh(&wb->work_lock);
> if (test_bit(WB_registered, &wb->state))
> queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, timeout);
> spin_unlock_bh(&wb->work_lock);
> }
>
> add_timer() is called because (presumably) timeout > 0. And after that
> timeout expires, __queue_work() is called even if WB_registered bit is
> already cleared before that timeout expires, isn't it?
Yes.
> void delayed_work_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t)
> {
> struct delayed_work *dwork = from_timer(dwork, t, timer);
>
> /* should have been called from irqsafe timer with irq already off */
> __queue_work(dwork->cpu, dwork->wq, &dwork->work);
> }
>
> Then, wb_workfn() is after all scheduled even if we check for
> WB_registered bit, isn't it?
It can be queued after WB_registered bit is cleared but it cannot be queued
after mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0) has finished. That function
deletes the pending timer (the timer cannot be armed again because
WB_registered is cleared) and queues what should be the last round of
wb_workfn().
> Then, don't we need to check that
>
> mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0);
> flush_delayed_work(&wb->dwork);
>
> is really waiting for completion? At least, shouldn't we try below debug
> output (not only for debugging this report but also generally desirable)?
>
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index 7441bd9..ccec8cd 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -376,8 +376,10 @@ static void wb_shutdown(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> * tells wb_workfn() that @wb is dying and its work_list needs to
> * be drained no matter what.
> */
> - mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0);
> - flush_delayed_work(&wb->dwork);
> + if (!mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0))
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "wb_shutdown: mod_delayed_work() failed\n");
false return from mod_delayed_work() just means that there was no timer
armed. That is a valid situation if there are no dirty data.
> + if (!flush_delayed_work(&wb->dwork))
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "wb_shutdown: flush_delayed_work() failed\n");
And this is valid as well (although unlikely) if the work managed to
complete on another CPU before flush_delayed_work() was called.
So I don't think your warnings will help us much. But yes, we need to debug
this somehow. For now I have no idea what could be still going wrong.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-21 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-03 16:26 [PATCH] bdi: Fix oops in wb_workfn() Jan Kara
2018-05-03 21:55 ` Dave Chinner
2018-05-03 21:57 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-09 9:48 ` Jan Kara
2018-05-03 22:35 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-09 9:47 ` Jan Kara
2018-05-19 14:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-21 9:38 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2018-05-25 10:15 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-09 10:31 ` Jan Kara
2018-05-09 14:42 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180521093823.kjj5tk7ko244jv4d@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).