Re: [patch] bug fix in dio handling write error - v2

[Suparna Bhattacharya]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:27:33AM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Referring to original posting:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113752710100001&r=1&w=2
> 
> Suparna pointed out that this fix has a potential race window.  I think
> the race condition also exists on the READ side currently. The fundamental
> problem is that dio->result is overloaded with dual use: an indicator of
> fall back path for partial dio write, and an error indicator used in the
> I/O completion path.  In the event of device error, the setting of -EIO
> to dio->result clashes with value used to track partial write that activates
> the fall back path.
> 
> One way to fix the race issue is to pull all the code that uses dio->result
> up before I/O is submitted and then never look at dio->result once IO is
> submitted.  Or alternatively another independent variable can be introduce
> to track fall back state, note that to set the tracking logic, kernel still
> have to look at dio->result before I/O is submitted.
> 
> The following patch implements the first option. I would appreciate some
> reviews.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> [patch] bug fix in dio handling write error
> 
> There is a bug in direct-io on propagating write error up to the
> higher I/O layer.  When performing an async ODIRECT write to a
> block device, if a device error occurred (like media error or disk
> is pulled), the error code is only propagated from device driver
> to the DIO layer.  The error code stops at finished_one_bio(). The
> aysnc write, however, is supposedly have a corresponding AIO event
> with appropriate return code (in this case -EIO).  Application
> which waits on the async write event, will hang forever since such
> AIO event is lost forever (if such app did not use the timeout
> option in io_getevents call. Regardless, an AIO event is lost).
> 
> The discovery of above bug leads to another discovery of potential
> race window with dio->result.  The fundamental problem is that
> dio->result is overloaded with dual use: an indicator of fall back
> path for partial dio write, and an error indicator used in the I/O
> completion path.  In the event of device error, the setting of -EIO
> to dio->result clashes with value used to track partial write that
> activates the fall back path.
> 
> Propose to fix the race issue by pulling all the code that uses
> dio->result up before I/O is submitted and then never look at
> dio->result once IO is submitted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> --- ./fs/direct-io.c.orig	2006-01-02 19:21:10.000000000 -0800
> +++ ./fs/direct-io.c	2006-03-19 01:57:49.797391064 -0800
> @@ -253,8 +253,7 @@ static void finished_one_bio(struct dio 
>  			dio_complete(dio, offset, transferred);
>  
>  			/* Complete AIO later if falling back to buffered i/o */
> -			if (dio->result == dio->size ||
> -				((dio->rw == READ) && dio->result)) {
> +			if (!dio->waiter) {
>  				aio_complete(dio->iocb, transferred, 0);
>  				kfree(dio);
>  				return;
> @@ -939,7 +938,7 @@ direct_io_worker(int rw, struct kiocb *i
>  	struct dio *dio)
>  {
>  	unsigned long user_addr; 
> -	int seg;
> +	int seg, should_wait = 0;
>  	ssize_t ret = 0;
>  	ssize_t ret2;
>  	size_t bytes;
> @@ -1031,6 +1030,16 @@ direct_io_worker(int rw, struct kiocb *i
>  		}
>  	} /* end iovec loop */
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * We'll have to wait for a partial write to drain before falling back
> +	 * to buffered.  We check this before submitting io so that completion
> +	 * doesn't have a chance to overwrite dio->result with -EIO.
> +	 */
> +	if (dio->result < dio->size && dio->is_async && rw == WRITE) {
> +		dio->waiter = current;
> +		should_wait = 1;
> +	}
> +

Isn't there a possibility that part of the IO for the overall request
may already have been submitted at this point ? (i.e. within
do_direct_IO->submit_page_section ->dio_send_cur_page->dio_bio_submit) 
This is what I was referring to in my earlier response to Zach's patch.

>  	if (ret == -ENOTBLK && rw == WRITE) {
>  		/*
>  		 * The remaining part of the request will be
> @@ -1051,6 +1060,7 @@ direct_io_worker(int rw, struct kiocb *i
>  		page_cache_release(dio->cur_page);
>  		dio->cur_page = NULL;
>  	}
> +	ret2 = dio->result;
>  	if (dio->bio)
>  		dio_bio_submit(dio);
>  
> @@ -1073,14 +1083,8 @@ direct_io_worker(int rw, struct kiocb *i
>  	 * reflect the number of to-be-processed BIOs.
>  	 */
>  	if (dio->is_async) {
> -		int should_wait = 0;
> -
> -		if (dio->result < dio->size && rw == WRITE) {
> -			dio->waiter = current;
> -			should_wait = 1;
> -		}
>  		if (ret == 0)
> -			ret = dio->result;
> +			ret = ret2;
>  		finished_one_bio(dio);		/* This can free the dio */
>  		blk_run_address_space(inode->i_mapping);
>  		if (should_wait) {
> 
> 
> 

Regards
Suparna

-- 
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@xxxxxxxxxx)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/