On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 02:17:46PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> [Cc: Paolo, Stefan]
> 
> Am 30.05.2026 um 19:58 hat Boudewijn van der Heide geschrieben:
> > scsi_disk_emulate_command() can be called from a coroutine;
> > when req->cmd.buf[0] is ALLOW_MEDIUM_REMOVAL, the synchronous
> > blk_lock_medium() is called, which hits assert(!qemu_in_coroutine()),
> > and crashes:
> > 
> >     qemu-system-hppa: block/block-gen.c:1692: blk_lock_medium:
> >     Assertion `!qemu_in_coroutine()' failed.
> > 
> > blk_eject() has the same problem, it can be called from coroutine,
> > because the same vtable entry (SCSIReqOps.send_command,
> > scsi_disk_emulate_command() here) calls blk_eject when req->cmd.buf[0]
> > is START_STOP.
> > 
> > Fix by switching to co_wrapper_mixed for blk_lock_medium() and
> > blk_eject() instead of just co_wrapper.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boudewijn van der Heide <[email protected]>
> 
> Yes, that will fix your immediate symptoms. I'm not completely sure if
> that's the level where we want to fix things, though, which is why I
> added Paolo and Stefan to Cc.
> 
> > ---
> > Observed crash on fedora qemu-10.1.5-1.fc43 on x86_64 host using 
> > qemu-system-hppa.
> > 
> > trace:
> > 
> > Thread 1 (...):
> >         # 5 __assert_fail (...) at assert.c
> >         # 6 blk_lock_medium (...) at block/block-gen.c
> >         # 7 scsi_disk_emulate_command (...) at ../hw/scsi/scsi-disk.c
> >         # 8 scsi_req_enqueue (...) at ../hw/scsi/scsi-bus.c
> >         # 9 lsi_do_command (...) at ../hw/scsi/lsi53c895a.c
> >         # 10 lsi_execute_script (...) at ../hw/scsi/lsi53c895a.c
> >         # 11 scsi_read_complete_noio (...) at ../hw/scsi/scsi-disk.c
> >         # 12 blk_aio_complete (...) at ../block/block-backend.c
> >         # 14 blk_aio_read_entry (...) at ../block/block-backend.c
> >         # 15 in coroutine_trampoline (...) at ../util/coroutine-ucontext.c
> > 
> > blk_eject() has the same path, but req->cmd.buf[0] is START_STOP instead
> > of ALLOW_MEDIUM_REMOVAL inside scsi_disk_emulate_command(),
> > so fix that aswell.
> 
> This would be useful information to have in the commit message proper.
> 
> The step from #10 to #11 seems to be a rather big one that left out
> intermediate function calls, so I'm not sure if I fully understand it.
> 
> Either way, I don't think lsi_execute_script() and the functions called
> by it were ever written with the intention to run in a coroutine. I'm
> almost sure that problems can be in more than just the two functions
> you're changing here. So my question is mostly, should the path involve
> a BH somewhere to break out of coroutine context, instead of making one
> or two specific cases work?

The code path in this bug is from the block layer (blk_aio_read_entry ->
blk_aio_complete) to scsi-disk (scsi_read_complete_noio) into the LSI
device (probably lsi_command_complete -> lsi_resume_script ->
lsi_execute_script).

I'm not sure if the LSI device, which is unaware of coroutines, should
have to work around this. It seems cleaner for blk_aio_preadv() to
invoke cb() from outside coroutine context since that API does not say
anything about coroutine contexts.

On the other hand, there will be a performance overhead for leaving
coroutine context even when it would be fine to run in a coroutine...

> If the general feeling is that we do want to make essentially all of the
> SCSI code coroutine_mixed_fn and are prepared to fix any issues arising
> from it, then this patch is fine as far as I am concerned.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> > ---
> >  include/system/block-backend-io.h | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/system/block-backend-io.h 
> > b/include/system/block-backend-io.h
> > index fd84723d9d..7368ad5c09 100644
> > --- a/include/system/block-backend-io.h
> > +++ b/include/system/block-backend-io.h
> > @@ -81,10 +81,10 @@ bool coroutine_fn GRAPH_RDLOCK 
> > blk_co_is_available(BlockBackend *blk);
> >  bool co_wrapper_mixed_bdrv_rdlock blk_is_available(BlockBackend *blk);
> >  
> >  void coroutine_fn blk_co_lock_medium(BlockBackend *blk, bool locked);
> > -void co_wrapper blk_lock_medium(BlockBackend *blk, bool locked);
> > +void co_wrapper_mixed blk_lock_medium(BlockBackend *blk, bool locked);
> >  
> >  void coroutine_fn blk_co_eject(BlockBackend *blk, bool eject_flag);
> > -void co_wrapper blk_eject(BlockBackend *blk, bool eject_flag);
> > +void co_wrapper_mixed blk_eject(BlockBackend *blk, bool eject_flag);
> >  
> >  int64_t coroutine_fn blk_co_getlength(BlockBackend *blk);
> >  int64_t co_wrapper_mixed blk_getlength(BlockBackend *blk);
> > -- 
> > 2.54.0
> > 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to