Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1614883 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-04-03 07:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-04-04 00:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@lge.com> - 2017-04-04 01:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 07:00 +0200

#1614883 — [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec

Johannes Thumshirn reported system goes the panic when using NVMe over
Fabrics loopback target with zram.

The reason is zram expects each bvec in bio contains a single page
but nvme can attach a huge bulk of pages attached to the bio's bvec
so that zram's index arithmetic could be wrong so that out-of-bound
access makes panic.

It can be solved by limiting max_sectors with SECTORS_PER_PAGE like
[1] but it makes zram slow because bio should split with each pages
so this patch makes zram aware of multiple pages in a bvec so it
could solve without any regression.

[1] 0bc315381fe9, zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
    bounds accesses

Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Reported-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 39 ++++++++++-----------------------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
index 01944419b1f3..28c2836f8c96 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
@@ -137,8 +137,7 @@ static inline bool valid_io_request(struct zram *zram,
 
 static void update_position(u32 *index, int *offset, struct bio_vec *bvec)
 {
-	if (*offset + bvec->bv_len >= PAGE_SIZE)
-		(*index)++;
+	*index  += (*offset + bvec->bv_len) / PAGE_SIZE;
 	*offset = (*offset + bvec->bv_len) % PAGE_SIZE;
 }
 
@@ -838,34 +837,20 @@ static void __zram_make_request(struct zram *zram, struct bio *bio)
 	}
 
 	bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
-		int max_transfer_size = PAGE_SIZE - offset;
-
-		if (bvec.bv_len > max_transfer_size) {
-			/*
-			 * zram_bvec_rw() can only make operation on a single
-			 * zram page. Split the bio vector.
-			 */
-			struct bio_vec bv;
-
-			bv.bv_page = bvec.bv_page;
-			bv.bv_len = max_transfer_size;
-			bv.bv_offset = bvec.bv_offset;
+		struct bio_vec bv = bvec;
+		unsigned int remained = bvec.bv_len;
 
+		do {
+			bv.bv_len = min_t(unsigned int, PAGE_SIZE, remained);
 			if (zram_bvec_rw(zram, &bv, index, offset,
-					 op_is_write(bio_op(bio))) < 0)
+					op_is_write(bio_op(bio))) < 0)
 				goto out;
 
-			bv.bv_len = bvec.bv_len - max_transfer_size;
-			bv.bv_offset += max_transfer_size;
-			if (zram_bvec_rw(zram, &bv, index + 1, 0,
-					 op_is_write(bio_op(bio))) < 0)
-				goto out;
-		} else
-			if (zram_bvec_rw(zram, &bvec, index, offset,
-					 op_is_write(bio_op(bio))) < 0)
-				goto out;
+			bv.bv_offset += bv.bv_len;
+			remained -= bv.bv_len;
 
-		update_position(&index, &offset, &bvec);
+			update_position(&index, &offset, &bv);
+		} while (remained);
 	}
 
 	bio_endio(bio);
@@ -882,8 +867,6 @@ static blk_qc_t zram_make_request(struct request_queue *queue, struct bio *bio)
 {
 	struct zram *zram = queue->queuedata;
 
-	blk_queue_split(queue, &bio, queue->bio_split);
-
 	if (!valid_io_request(zram, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector,
 					bio->bi_iter.bi_size)) {
 		atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.invalid_io);
@@ -1191,8 +1174,6 @@ static int zram_add(void)
 	blk_queue_io_min(zram->disk->queue, PAGE_SIZE);
 	blk_queue_io_opt(zram->disk->queue, PAGE_SIZE);
 	zram->disk->queue->limits.discard_granularity = PAGE_SIZE;
-	zram->disk->queue->limits.max_sectors = SECTORS_PER_PAGE;
-	zram->disk->queue->limits.chunk_sectors = 0;
 	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(zram->disk->queue, UINT_MAX);
 	/*
 	 * zram_bio_discard() will clear all logical blocks if logical block
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615597

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:17:29 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:

> Johannes Thumshirn reported system goes the panic when using NVMe over
> Fabrics loopback target with zram.
> 
> The reason is zram expects each bvec in bio contains a single page
> but nvme can attach a huge bulk of pages attached to the bio's bvec
> so that zram's index arithmetic could be wrong so that out-of-bound
> access makes panic.
> 
> It can be solved by limiting max_sectors with SECTORS_PER_PAGE like
> [1] but it makes zram slow because bio should split with each pages
> so this patch makes zram aware of multiple pages in a bvec so it
> could solve without any regression.
> 
> [1] 0bc315381fe9, zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
>     bounds accesses

This isn't a cleanup - it fixes a panic (or is it a BUG or is it an
oops, or...)

How serious is this bug?  Should the fix be backported into -stable
kernels?  etc.

A better description of the bug's behaviour would be appropriate.

> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
> Reported-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

This signoff trail is confusing.  It somewhat implies that Johannes
authored the patch which I don't think is the case?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615610

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:17:29 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Johannes Thumshirn reported system goes the panic when using NVMe over
> > Fabrics loopback target with zram.
> > 
> > The reason is zram expects each bvec in bio contains a single page
> > but nvme can attach a huge bulk of pages attached to the bio's bvec
> > so that zram's index arithmetic could be wrong so that out-of-bound
> > access makes panic.
> > 
> > It can be solved by limiting max_sectors with SECTORS_PER_PAGE like
> > [1] but it makes zram slow because bio should split with each pages
> > so this patch makes zram aware of multiple pages in a bvec so it
> > could solve without any regression.
> > 
> > [1] 0bc315381fe9, zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
> >     bounds accesses
> 
> This isn't a cleanup - it fixes a panic (or is it a BUG or is it an
> oops, or...)

I should have written more carefully.
Johannes reported the problem with fix[1] and Jens already sent it to the
mainline to fix it. However, during the discussion, we can solve the problem
nice way so this is revert of [1] plus solving the problem with other way
which no need to split bio.

Thanks.

> 
> How serious is this bug?  Should the fix be backported into -stable
> kernels?  etc.
> 
> A better description of the bug's behaviour would be appropriate.
> 
> > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> > Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
> > Reported-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> 
> This signoff trail is confusing.  It somewhat implies that Johannes
> authored the patch which I don't think is the case?
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615707

On (04/03/17 14:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Johannes Thumshirn reported system goes the panic when using NVMe over
> Fabrics loopback target with zram.
> 
> The reason is zram expects each bvec in bio contains a single page
> but nvme can attach a huge bulk of pages attached to the bio's bvec
> so that zram's index arithmetic could be wrong so that out-of-bound
> access makes panic.
> 
> It can be solved by limiting max_sectors with SECTORS_PER_PAGE like
> [1] but it makes zram slow because bio should split with each pages
> so this patch makes zram aware of multiple pages in a bvec so it
> could solve without any regression.
> 
> [1] 0bc315381fe9, zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
>     bounds accesses
> 
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
> Reported-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>


> +		unsigned int remained = bvec.bv_len;
...
> +		} while (remained);

a tiny nitpick,  "-ed" in variable name looks a bit unusual.

	-ss

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web