From: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz
mainline inclusion from mainline-v5.14-rc1 commit a921c655f2033dd1ce1379128efe881dda23ea37 category: bugfix bugzilla: 185777, 185811 CVE: NA
Currently, bfq does very little in bfq_requests_merged() and handles all the request cleanup in bfq_finish_requeue_request() called from blk_mq_free_request(). That is currently safe only because blk_mq_free_request() is called shortly after bfq_requests_merged() while bfqd->lock is still held. However to fix a lock inversion between bfqd->lock and ioc->lock, we need to call blk_mq_free_request() after dropping bfqd->lock. That would mean that already merged request could be seen by other processes inside bfq queues and possibly dispatched to the device which is wrong. So move cleanup of the request from bfq_finish_requeue_request() to bfq_requests_merged().
Acked-by: Paolo Valente paolo.valente@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210623093634.27879-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk
conflict: in bfq_finish_requeue_request, 4.19 not have bfq_update_inject_limit branch; Signed-off-by: zhangwensheng zhangwensheng5@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Jason Yan yanaijie@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang yangyingliang@huawei.com --- block/bfq-iosched.c | 41 +++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index 7d77de9a0f5c0..5452d892480ba 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -1937,7 +1937,7 @@ static void bfq_requests_merged(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, *next_bfqq = bfq_init_rq(next);
if (!bfqq) - return; + goto remove;
/* * If next and rq belong to the same bfq_queue and next is older @@ -1960,6 +1960,14 @@ static void bfq_requests_merged(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, bfqq->next_rq = rq;
bfqg_stats_update_io_merged(bfqq_group(bfqq), next->cmd_flags); +remove: + /* Merged request may be in the IO scheduler. Remove it. */ + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&next->rb_node)) { + bfq_remove_request(next->q, next); + if (next_bfqq) + bfqg_stats_update_io_remove(bfqq_group(next_bfqq), + next->cmd_flags); + } }
/* Must be called with bfqq != NULL */ @@ -4876,6 +4884,7 @@ static void bfq_finish_requeue_request(struct request *rq) { struct bfq_queue *bfqq = RQ_BFQQ(rq); struct bfq_data *bfqd; + unsigned long flags;
/* * rq either is not associated with any icq, or is an already @@ -4893,36 +4902,12 @@ static void bfq_finish_requeue_request(struct request *rq) rq->io_start_time_ns, rq->cmd_flags);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&bfqd->lock, flags); if (likely(rq->rq_flags & RQF_STARTED)) { - unsigned long flags; - - spin_lock_irqsave(&bfqd->lock, flags); - bfq_completed_request(bfqq, bfqd); - bfq_finish_requeue_request_body(bfqq); - - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bfqd->lock, flags); - } else { - /* - * Request rq may be still/already in the scheduler, - * in which case we need to remove it (this should - * never happen in case of requeue). And we cannot - * defer such a check and removal, to avoid - * inconsistencies in the time interval from the end - * of this function to the start of the deferred work. - * This situation seems to occur only in process - * context, as a consequence of a merge. In the - * current version of the code, this implies that the - * lock is held. - */ - - if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&rq->rb_node)) { - bfq_remove_request(rq->q, rq); - bfqg_stats_update_io_remove(bfqq_group(bfqq), - rq->cmd_flags); - } - bfq_finish_requeue_request_body(bfqq); } + bfq_finish_requeue_request_body(bfqq); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bfqd->lock, flags);
/* * Reset private fields. In case of a requeue, this allows