Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:49:14 -0700
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@google.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: NULL pointer due to malformed bcache bio
Message-ID: <20130410224914.GD30871@google.com>
References: <20130410205439.GA18092@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130410205439.GA18092@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1196
Lines: 25

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 04:54:40PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> So DM core clearly needs to be more defensive about the possibility for
> a NULL return from bio_alloc_bioset() given I'm hitting a NULL pointer
> in DM's alloc_tio() because nr_iovecs=512.  bio_alloc_bioset()'s call to
> bvec_alloc() only supports nr_iovecs up to BIO_MAX_PAGES (256).
> 
> Seems bcache should be using bio_get_nr_vecs() or something else?
> 
> But by using a bcache bucket size of 2MB, with the bcache staged in
> Jens' for-next, I've caused bcache to issue bios with nr_iovecs=512:

Argh. Why is dm using bi_max_vecs instead of bi_vcnt? I could hack
around this in bcache but I think dm is doing the wrong thing here.

Unless I've missed something in my testing (and bcache's BIO_MAX_PAGES
check isn't quite right, actually) bcache _is_ splitting its bios
whenever bio_segments(bio) > BIO_MAX_PAGES, it's only bi_max_vecs that's
potentially > BIO_MAX_PAGES.
--
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/