Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261421AbTIXJVd (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:21:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261772AbTIXJVd (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:21:33 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:61874 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261421AbTIXJVb (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:21:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:21:30 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Zabolotny Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: __make_request() bug and a fix variant Message-ID: <20030924092130.GN1321@suse.de> References: <20030919231732.7f7874e6.zap@homelink.ru> <20030920113737.GQ21870@suse.de> <20030920193626.31d2b8f5.zap@homelink.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030920193626.31d2b8f5.zap@homelink.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2578 Lines: 62 On Sat, Sep 20 2003, Andrew Zabolotny wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:37:37 +0200 > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > I dunno if you were the one posting this issue here some months ago? > No, it wasn't me :-) > > > Show me a regular kernel path that passes invalid b_reqnext to > > __make_request? That would be a bug, indeed, but I've never heard of > > such a bug. Most likely it's a bug in your driver, not initialising > > b_reqnext. > I have been calling bread() which was causing me troubles. bread does > not accept a buffer_head from outside, it gets a new one and returns it. > So I don't have any control over b_reqnext field - the bug happens > inside bread() between these lines: > > bh = getblk(dev, block, size); > /* here bh_reqnext is already junk. In fact, I partially solved this > problem by making my own clone of bread() and setting b_reqnext > to NULL right here. But unfortunately, there is no guarantee we'll > fix all invalid buffer_heads - maybe some remain in the pool and > will be returned to other innocent drivers requesting them. */ > if (buffer_uptodate(bh)) > return bh; > /* and now ll_rw_block will try to merge the bh with those already in > the queue, and if it will take the ELEVATOR_NO_MERGE path, bh_reqnext > will still remain junk. */ > ll_rw_block(READ, 1, &bh); Looks very odd, there must be a bug elsewhere. What else is junk in the bh? It follows that if you submit a buffer_head for io, it must be properly initialized for io. Nobody complains that if b_blocknr is crap that data ends up in the wrong location. Likewise, b_reqnext must be initialized to NULL. > > You can see the initialisor for buffer_heads is > > init_buffer_head, which memsets the entire buffer_head. When a > > buffer_head is detached from the request list, b_reqnext is cleared > > too. > Ah, so I was correct that __make_request expects b_reqnext to be already > set to NULL. In this case the bug should be somewhere else - in some > code that returns buffer_head's back to the pool of buffers. Exactly! > Interesting that right before the driver crashes in bread() I call > grok_partitions. I think the bug is somewhere there. I will do a new > debug session at Monday (the code that breaks is at work), so I will > post new details if I find any. Please do. -- Jens Axboe - 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/