> >>> Does anyone have an idea? > >>> The request itself is completely filled with cc > >> > >> That is very weird, the 'rq' is got from hctx->tags, and rq should be > >> valid, and rq->q shouldn't have been changed even though it was > >> double free or double allocation. > >> > >>> I am currently asking myself if blk_mq_map_request should protect against > >>> softirq here but I cant say for sure,as I have never looked into that > >>> code before. > >> > >> No, it needn't the protection. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > >
Digging through the code, I think I found a possible cause: tags->rqs[..] is not initialized with zeroes (via alloc_pages_node in blk-mq.c:blk_mq_init_rq_map()). When a request is created: 1. __blk_mq_alloc_request() gets a free tag (thus e.g. removing it from bitmap_tags) 2. __blk_mq_alloc_request() initializes is via blk_mq_rq_ctx_init(). The struct is filled with life and rq->q is set. When blk_mq_hw_ctx_check_timeout() is called: 1. blk_mq_tag_busy_iter() is used to call blk_mq_timeout_check() on all busy tags. 2. This is done by collecting all free tags using bt_for_each_free() and handing them to blk_mq_timeout_check(). This uses bitmap_tags. 3. blk_mq_timeout_check() calls blk_mq_tag_to_rq() to get the rq. Could we have a race between - getting the tag (turning it busy) and initializing it and - detecting a tag to be busy and trying to access it? I haven't looked at the details yet. If so, we might either do some locking (if there is existing infrastructure), or somehow mark a request as not being initialized prior to accessing the data. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
