Re: [PATCH] blk-cgroup: check blkcg policy is enabled in blkg_create()
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>
Date: 2021-10-11 15:23:25
Also in:
linux-block, lkml
Hello. On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 03:27:20PM +0800, Yu Kuai [off-list ref] wrote:
This is because blkg_alloc() is called from blkg_conf_prep() without holding 'q->queue_lock', and elevator is exited before blkg_create():
IIUC the problematic interleaving is this one (I've noticed `blkg->pd[i] = NULL` to thread 2 call trace):
thread 1 thread 2
blkg_conf_prep
spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
blkg_lookup_check -> return NULL
spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
blkg_alloc
blkcg_policy_enabled -> true
pd = ->pd_alloc_fn
blk_mq_exit_sched
bfq_exit_queue
blkcg_deactivate_policy
spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
__clear_bit(pol->plid, q->blkcg_pols); pol->pd_free_fn(blkg->pd[i]);
blkg->pd[i] = NULL;
spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
q->elevator = NULL;blkg->pd[i] = pd
spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
blkg_create
if (blkg->pd[i])
->pd_init_fn -> q->elevator is NULL
spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);In high-level terms, is this a race between (blk)io controller attribute write and a device scheduler (elevator) switch? If so, I'd add it to the commit message.
Fix the problem by checking that policy is still enabled in blkg_create().
Is this sufficient wrt some other q->elevator users later?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -252,6 +266,9 @@ static struct blkcg_gq *blkg_create(struct blkcg *blkcg, goto err_free_blkg; }
I'd add a comment here like:
Re-check policies are still enabled, since the caller blkg_conf_prep() temporarily drops q->queue_lock and we can race with blk_mq_exit_sched() removing policies.
+ if (new_blkg) + blkg_check_pd(q, new_blkg); +
Thanks, Michal