Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event()

From	Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event()
Date	2015-10-30 17:30 +0100
Message-ID	<qpkIW-84i-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qouKm-lA-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoJq1-1ui-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoWng-1hg-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qp6PD-7Qh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qpixs-6LW-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:02:47PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Isn't the 4.1 fix just:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > index e5befa356dbe..6e4350a78257 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > @@ -3522,16 +3522,16 @@ returnbi:
> >                   * no updated data, so remove it from hash list and the stripe
> >                   * will be reinitialized
> >                   */
> > - spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> >  unhash:
> > + spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
> >                  remove_hash(sh);
> > + spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
> >                  if (head_sh->batch_head) {
> >                          sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
> >                                                struct stripe_head, batch_list);
> >                          if (sh != head_sh)
> >                                          goto unhash;
> >                  }
> > - spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> >                  sh = head_sh;
> >
> >                  if (test_bit(STRIPE_SYNC_REQUESTED, &sh->state))
> >
> > ??
> 
> In my opion, this patch looks correct, although it seems to me, that there is an another issue here.
> 
> >                  if (head_sh->batch_head) {
> >                          sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
> >                                                struct stripe_head, batch_list);
> >                          if (sh != head_sh)
> >                                          goto unhash;
> >                  }
>  
> With a patch above this code will be executed without taking any locks. It it correct?
> In my opinion, we need to take at least sh->stripe_lock, which protects sh->batch_head.
> Or do I miss something?
> 
> If you want, we can handle this issue separately.

The batch_list list doesn't need the protection. Only the remove_hash() need it.

Thanks,
Shaohua
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

[PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-28 10:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> - 2015-10-29 01:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> - 2015-10-29 22:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> - 2015-10-30 02:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-30 15:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> - 2015-10-30 23:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-31 13:30 +0100

csiph-web