| Message ID | 8239CB66-1836-444D-A230-83714795D5DC@purestorage.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] scsi: scsi_dh_alua: do not set h->sdev to NULL before removing the list entry | expand |
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 09:21 -0700, Brian Bunker wrote: > A race exists where the BUG_ON(!h->sdev) will fire if the detach > device handler > from one thread runs removing a list entry while another thread is > trying to > evaluate the target portal group state. > > Do not set the h->sdev to NULL in the detach device handler. It is > freed at the > end of the function any way. Also remove the BUG_ON since the > condition > that causes them to fire has been removed. > > Signed-off-by: Brian Bunker <brian@purestorage.com> > Acked-by: Krishna Kant <krishna.kant@purestorage.com> > ___ > --- a/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-10 > 12:29:03.000000000 -0700 > +++ b/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-11 > 09:14:15.000000000 -0700 > @@ -658,8 +658,6 @@ > rcu_read_lock(); > list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, > &tmp_pg->dh_list, > node) { > - /* h->sdev should > always be valid */ > - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); > h->sdev->access_state > = desc[0]; > } > rcu_read_unlock(); > @@ -705,7 +703,6 @@ > pg->expiry = 0; > rcu_read_lock(); > list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list, > node) { > - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); > h->sdev->access_state = > (pg->state & > SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK); > if (pg->pref) > @@ -1147,7 +1144,6 @@ > spin_lock(&h->pg_lock); > pg = rcu_dereference_protected(h->pg, lockdep_is_held(&h- > >pg_lock)); > rcu_assign_pointer(h->pg, NULL); > - h->sdev = NULL; > spin_unlock(&h->pg_lock); > if (pg) { > spin_lock_irq(&pg->lock); > We ran this change through fault insertion regression testing and did not see any new problems. (Our tests didn't hit the original bug being fixed here though.) -Ewan
Internally we had discussions about adding a synchronize_rcu here:
--- a/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-10 12:29:03.000000000 -0700
+++ b/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-18 14:59:59.000000000 -0700
@@ -658,8 +658,6 @@
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(h,
&tmp_pg->dh_list, node) {
- /* h->sdev should always be valid */
- BUG_ON(!h->sdev);
h->sdev->access_state = desc[0];
}
rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -705,7 +703,6 @@
pg->expiry = 0;
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list, node) {
- BUG_ON(!h->sdev);
h->sdev->access_state =
(pg->state & SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK);
if (pg->pref)
@@ -1147,7 +1144,6 @@
spin_lock(&h->pg_lock);
pg = rcu_dereference_protected(h->pg, lockdep_is_held(&h->pg_lock));
rcu_assign_pointer(h->pg, NULL);
- h->sdev = NULL;
spin_unlock(&h->pg_lock);
if (pg) {
spin_lock_irq(&pg->lock);
@@ -1156,6 +1152,7 @@
kref_put(&pg->kref, release_port_group);
}
sdev->handler_data = NULL;
+ synchronize_rcu();
kfree(h);
}
We were thinking that this would allow any running readers to finish before the object is freed. Would
that make sense there? From what I can tell the only RCU implementation in this kernel version in
scsi is here, so I couldn’t find many examples to follow.
Brian Bunker
SW Eng
brian@purestorage.com
> On Sep 18, 2020, at 11:41 AM, Ewan D. Milne <emilne@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 09:21 -0700, Brian Bunker wrote:
>> A race exists where the BUG_ON(!h->sdev) will fire if the detach
>> device handler
>> from one thread runs removing a list entry while another thread is
>> trying to
>> evaluate the target portal group state.
>>
>> Do not set the h->sdev to NULL in the detach device handler. It is
>> freed at the
>> end of the function any way. Also remove the BUG_ON since the
>> condition
>> that causes them to fire has been removed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Bunker <brian@purestorage.com>
>> Acked-by: Krishna Kant <krishna.kant@purestorage.com>
>> ___
>> --- a/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-10
>> 12:29:03.000000000 -0700
>> +++ b/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-11
>> 09:14:15.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -658,8 +658,6 @@
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(h,
>> &tmp_pg->dh_list,
>> node) {
>> - /* h->sdev should
>> always be valid */
>> - BUG_ON(!h->sdev);
>> h->sdev->access_state
>> = desc[0];
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> @@ -705,7 +703,6 @@
>> pg->expiry = 0;
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list,
>> node) {
>> - BUG_ON(!h->sdev);
>> h->sdev->access_state =
>> (pg->state &
>> SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK);
>> if (pg->pref)
>> @@ -1147,7 +1144,6 @@
>> spin_lock(&h->pg_lock);
>> pg = rcu_dereference_protected(h->pg, lockdep_is_held(&h-
>>> pg_lock));
>> rcu_assign_pointer(h->pg, NULL);
>> - h->sdev = NULL;
>> spin_unlock(&h->pg_lock);
>> if (pg) {
>> spin_lock_irq(&pg->lock);
>>
>
> We ran this change through fault insertion regression testing and
> did not see any new problems. (Our tests didn't hit the original
> bug being fixed here though.)
>
> -Ewan
>
>
On 9/19/20 12:07 AM, Brian Bunker wrote: > Internally we had discussions about adding a synchronize_rcu here: > > --- a/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-10 12:29:03.000000000 -0700 > +++ b/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-18 14:59:59.000000000 -0700 > @@ -658,8 +658,6 @@ > rcu_read_lock(); > list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, > &tmp_pg->dh_list, node) { > - /* h->sdev should always be valid */ > - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); > h->sdev->access_state = desc[0]; > } > rcu_read_unlock(); > @@ -705,7 +703,6 @@ > pg->expiry = 0; > rcu_read_lock(); > list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list, node) { > - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); > h->sdev->access_state = > (pg->state & SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK); > if (pg->pref) > @@ -1147,7 +1144,6 @@ > spin_lock(&h->pg_lock); > pg = rcu_dereference_protected(h->pg, lockdep_is_held(&h->pg_lock)); > rcu_assign_pointer(h->pg, NULL); > - h->sdev = NULL; > spin_unlock(&h->pg_lock); > if (pg) { > spin_lock_irq(&pg->lock); > @@ -1156,6 +1152,7 @@ > kref_put(&pg->kref, release_port_group); > } > sdev->handler_data = NULL; > + synchronize_rcu(); > kfree(h); > } > > We were thinking that this would allow any running readers to finish before the object is freed. Would > that make sense there? From what I can tell the only RCU implementation in this kernel version in > scsi is here, so I couldn’t find many examples to follow. > That actually looks quite viable (if the intendation gets fixed :-) Initially I was thinking of using 'h->sdev = NULL' as a marker for the other code to figure out that the device has about to be deleted; that worked, but with rather unintended consequences. Have you tried with your patch? Cheers, Hannes
We have tried with our patch here and it works. We have not tried with our patch at the customer site where they hit the crash. Since they hit the BUG_ON line which we can see in the logs we have, we expect that removing the race as we did would avoid the crash. We also remove the BUG_ON’s in our patch so it can’t hit the same crash. If there is another similar race a null pointer deference could still happen in our patch. I saw you had a patch to only use the value if the pointer is not null. That would also work to stop the crash, but it would hide the race where the BUG_ON was helpful in finding it. Trying our fix at the customer site for us would be more difficult since the operating system crash belongs to Oracle. That is why you see their patch for the same issue. Our interest in getting this fixed goes beyond this customer since more Linux vendors as they move forward in kernel version inherit this code, and we are reliant on ALUA. We hope to catch it here. Should I put together a patch with the h->sdev set to null removed from the detach function along the syncrhronize_rcu and removing the BUG_ON, or did you want me to diff against your checkin where you have already removed the BUG_ON? Thanks, Brian Brian Bunker SW Eng brian@purestorage.com > On Sep 23, 2020, at 1:23 AM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote: > > On 9/19/20 12:07 AM, Brian Bunker wrote: >> Internally we had discussions about adding a synchronize_rcu here: >> --- a/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-10 12:29:03.000000000 -0700 >> +++ b/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-18 14:59:59.000000000 -0700 >> @@ -658,8 +658,6 @@ >> rcu_read_lock(); >> list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, >> &tmp_pg->dh_list, node) { >> - /* h->sdev should always be valid */ >> - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); >> h->sdev->access_state = desc[0]; >> } >> rcu_read_unlock(); >> @@ -705,7 +703,6 @@ >> pg->expiry = 0; >> rcu_read_lock(); >> list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list, node) { >> - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); >> h->sdev->access_state = >> (pg->state & SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK); >> if (pg->pref) >> @@ -1147,7 +1144,6 @@ >> spin_lock(&h->pg_lock); >> pg = rcu_dereference_protected(h->pg, lockdep_is_held(&h->pg_lock)); >> rcu_assign_pointer(h->pg, NULL); >> - h->sdev = NULL; >> spin_unlock(&h->pg_lock); >> if (pg) { >> spin_lock_irq(&pg->lock); >> @@ -1156,6 +1152,7 @@ >> kref_put(&pg->kref, release_port_group); >> } >> sdev->handler_data = NULL; >> + synchronize_rcu(); >> kfree(h); >> } >> We were thinking that this would allow any running readers to finish before the object is freed. Would >> that make sense there? From what I can tell the only RCU implementation in this kernel version in >> scsi is here, so I couldn’t find many examples to follow. >> That actually looks quite viable (if the intendation gets fixed :-) > Initially I was thinking of using 'h->sdev = NULL' as a marker for the other code to figure out that the device has about to be deleted; that worked, but with rather unintended consequences. > > Have you tried with your patch? > > Cheers, > > Hannes > -- > Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect > hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 > SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg > HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
On 9/24/20 12:21 AM, Brian Bunker wrote: > We have tried with our patch here and it works. We have not tried with our patch at the > customer site where they hit the crash. Since they hit the BUG_ON line which we > can see in the logs we have, we expect that removing the race as we did > would avoid the crash. We also remove the BUG_ON’s in our patch so it can’t hit > the same crash. If there is another similar race a null pointer deference could still > happen in our patch. I saw you had a patch to only use the value if the pointer is not > null. That would also work to stop the crash, but it would hide the race where the > BUG_ON was helpful in finding it. > > Trying our fix at the customer site for us would be more difficult since the operating > system crash belongs to Oracle. That is why you see their patch for the same > issue. Our interest in getting this fixed goes beyond this customer since more > Linux vendors as they move forward in kernel version inherit this code, and > we are reliant on ALUA. We hope to catch it here. > > Should I put together a patch with the h->sdev set to null removed from the > detach function along the syncrhronize_rcu and removing the BUG_ON, or > did you want me to diff against your checkin where you have already removed > the BUG_ON? > No need, I already sent a patch attached to another mail to the oracle folks. Guess I'll be sending an 'official' patch now, seeing that I have confirmation. Cheers, Hannes
--- a/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-10 12:29:03.000000000 -0700 +++ b/scsi/drivers/scsi/device_handler/scsi_dh_alua.c 2020-09-11 09:14:15.000000000 -0700 @@ -658,8 +658,6 @@ rcu_read_lock(); list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &tmp_pg->dh_list, node) { - /* h->sdev should always be valid */ - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); h->sdev->access_state = desc[0]; } rcu_read_unlock(); @@ -705,7 +703,6 @@ pg->expiry = 0; rcu_read_lock(); list_for_each_entry_rcu(h, &pg->dh_list, node) { - BUG_ON(!h->sdev); h->sdev->access_state = (pg->state & SCSI_ACCESS_STATE_MASK); if (pg->pref) @@ -1147,7 +1144,6 @@ spin_lock(&h->pg_lock); pg = rcu_dereference_protected(h->pg, lockdep_is_held(&h->pg_lock)); rcu_assign_pointer(h->pg, NULL); - h->sdev = NULL; spin_unlock(&h->pg_lock); if (pg) { spin_lock_irq(&pg->lock);