Message-ID: <5930BBC1.9070608@163.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:13:37 +0800
From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@163.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
CC: bart.vanassche@sandisk.com, davem@davemloft.net, hare@suse.com,
        elfring@users.sourceforge.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iscsi: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug
References: <1496201199-3661-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@163.com> <1496298093.27407.203.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <1496298093.27407.203.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2719
Lines: 71

On 06/01/2017 02:21 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> Hi Jia-Ju,
>
> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 11:26 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> The driver may sleep under a spin lock, and the function call path is:
>> iscsit_tpg_enable_portal_group (acquire the lock by spin_lock)
>>    iscsi_update_param_value
>>      kstrdup(GFP_KERNEL) -->  may sleep
>>
>> To fix it, the "GFP_KERNEL" is replaced with "GFP_ATOMIC".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai<baijiaju1990@163.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c |    2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> Btw, the use of tpg->tpg_state_lock in iscsit_tpg_enable_portal_group()
> while checking existing state and calling iscsi_update_param_value() is
> not necessary, since lio_target_tpg_enable_store() is already holding
> iscsit_get_tpg() ->  tpg->tpg_access_lock.
>
> How about the following instead to only take tpg->tpg_state_lock when
> updating tpg->tpg_state instead..?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_tpg.c b/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_tpg.c
> index 2e7e08d..abaabba 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_tpg.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_tpg.c
> @@ -311,11 +311,9 @@ int iscsit_tpg_enable_portal_group(struct iscsi_portal_group *tpg)
>          struct iscsi_tiqn *tiqn = tpg->tpg_tiqn;
>          int ret;
>
> -       spin_lock(&tpg->tpg_state_lock);
>          if (tpg->tpg_state == TPG_STATE_ACTIVE) {
>                  pr_err("iSCSI target portal group: %hu is already"
>                          " active, ignoring request.\n", tpg->tpgt);
> -               spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_state_lock);
>                  return -EINVAL;
>          }
>          /*
> @@ -324,10 +322,8 @@ int iscsit_tpg_enable_portal_group(struct iscsi_portal_group *tpg)
>           * is enforced (as per default), and remove the NONE option.
>           */
>          param = iscsi_find_param_from_key(AUTHMETHOD, tpg->param_list);
> -       if (!param) {
> -               spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_state_lock);
> +       if (!param)
>                  return -EINVAL;
> -       }
>
>          if (tpg->tpg_attrib.authentication) {
>                  if (!strcmp(param->value, NONE)) {
> @@ -341,6 +337,7 @@ int iscsit_tpg_enable_portal_group(struct iscsi_portal_group *tpg)
>                          goto err;
>          }
>
> +       spin_lock(&tpg->tpg_state_lock);
>          tpg->tpg_state = TPG_STATE_ACTIVE;
>          spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_state_lock);
>
> @@ -353,7 +350,6 @@ int iscsit_tpg_enable_portal_group(struct iscsi_portal_group *tpg)
>          return 0;
>
>   err:
> -       spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_state_lock);
>          return ret;
>   }
>
I think it is fine to me.

Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai