| Message ID | 157150237973.3940076.12626102230619807187.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | fs/dax: Fix pmd vs pte conflict detection | expand |
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 09:26:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order > must fallback to lookup the correct order. > > Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@intel.com> > Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults") > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > --- > fs/dax.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644 > --- a/fs/dax.c > +++ b/fs/dax.c > @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order) > > for (;;) { > entry = xas_find_conflict(xas); > + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry))) > + return entry; > if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order) > return XA_RETRY_ENTRY; > - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) || > - !dax_is_locked(entry)) > + if (!dax_is_locked(entry)) > return entry; Yes, I think this works. Should we also add: static unsigned int dax_entry_order(void *entry) { + BUG_ON(!xa_is_value(entry)); if (xa_to_value(entry) & DAX_PMD) return PMD_ORDER; return 0; } which would have caught this logic error before it caused a performance regression?
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:50 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 09:26:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL > > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to > > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order > > must fallback to lookup the correct order. > > > > Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@intel.com> > > Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > > Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults") > > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > --- > > fs/dax.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > > index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644 > > --- a/fs/dax.c > > +++ b/fs/dax.c > > @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order) > > > > for (;;) { > > entry = xas_find_conflict(xas); > > + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry))) > > + return entry; > > if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order) > > return XA_RETRY_ENTRY; > > - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) || > > - !dax_is_locked(entry)) > > + if (!dax_is_locked(entry)) > > return entry; > > Yes, I think this works. Should we also add: > > static unsigned int dax_entry_order(void *entry) > { > + BUG_ON(!xa_is_value(entry)); > if (xa_to_value(entry) & DAX_PMD) > return PMD_ORDER; > return 0; > } > > which would have caught this logic error before it caused a performance > regression? Sounds good will add it to v2.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 4:09 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:50 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 09:26:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL > > > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to > > > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order > > > must fallback to lookup the correct order. > > > > > > Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@intel.com> > > > Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com> > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > > > Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults") > > > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > > > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > > --- > > > fs/dax.c | 5 +++-- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > > > index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644 > > > --- a/fs/dax.c > > > +++ b/fs/dax.c > > > @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order) > > > > > > for (;;) { > > > entry = xas_find_conflict(xas); > > > + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry))) > > > + return entry; > > > if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order) > > > return XA_RETRY_ENTRY; > > > - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) || > > > - !dax_is_locked(entry)) > > > + if (!dax_is_locked(entry)) > > > return entry; > > > > Yes, I think this works. Should we also add: > > > > static unsigned int dax_entry_order(void *entry) > > { > > + BUG_ON(!xa_is_value(entry)); > > if (xa_to_value(entry) & DAX_PMD) > > return PMD_ORDER; > > return 0; > > } > > > > which would have caught this logic error before it caused a performance > > regression? > > Sounds good will add it to v2. ...except that there are multiple dax helpers that have the 'value' entry assumption. I'd rather do all of them in a separate patch, or none of them. It turns out that after this change all dax_entry_order() invocations are now protected by a xa_is_value() assert earlier in the calling function.
On Sat 19-10-19 09:26:19, Dan Williams wrote: > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order > must fallback to lookup the correct order. > > Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@intel.com> > Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults") > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Good catch! The patch looks good to me. You can add: Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Honza > --- > fs/dax.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644 > --- a/fs/dax.c > +++ b/fs/dax.c > @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order) > > for (;;) { > entry = xas_find_conflict(xas); > + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry))) > + return entry; > if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order) > return XA_RETRY_ENTRY; > - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) || > - !dax_is_locked(entry)) > + if (!dax_is_locked(entry)) > return entry; > > wq = dax_entry_waitqueue(xas, entry, &ewait.key); >
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes: > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order > must fallback to lookup the correct order. Please include the user-visible effects of the problem in the changelog. Thanks, Jeff > > Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@intel.com> > Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults") > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > --- > fs/dax.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c > index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644 > --- a/fs/dax.c > +++ b/fs/dax.c > @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order) > > for (;;) { > entry = xas_find_conflict(xas); > + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry))) > + return entry; > if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order) > return XA_RETRY_ENTRY; > - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) || > - !dax_is_locked(entry)) > + if (!dax_is_locked(entry)) > return entry; > > wq = dax_entry_waitqueue(xas, entry, &ewait.key);
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:07 AM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote: > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes: > > > Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL > > is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to > > happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order > > must fallback to lookup the correct order. > > Please include the user-visible effects of the problem in the changelog. > Yup, I noticed that right after sending.
diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644 --- a/fs/dax.c +++ b/fs/dax.c @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order) for (;;) { entry = xas_find_conflict(xas); + if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry))) + return entry; if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order) return XA_RETRY_ENTRY; - if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) || - !dax_is_locked(entry)) + if (!dax_is_locked(entry)) return entry; wq = dax_entry_waitqueue(xas, entry, &ewait.key);
Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order must fallback to lookup the correct order. Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@intel.com> Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults") Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> --- fs/dax.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)