lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen/blkfront: Add BUG_ON to deal with misbehaving backends.
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> The blkfront_remove part is .. that is going to take some surgery to do
> and I don't think I am going to be able to attempt that within the next couple
> of weeks. So lets put that on the TODO list and just do this one?

OK

> >From 4aabb5b44778fc0c0b8d4f5a2e2cd8e8490064d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 17:34:51 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] xen/blkfront: Add WARN to deal with misbehaving backends.
>
> Part of the ring structure is the 'id' field which is under
> control of the frontend. The frontend stamps it with "some"
> value (this some in this implementation being a value less
> than BLK_RING_SIZE), and when it gets a response expects
> said value to be in the response structure. We have a check
> for the id field when spolling new requests but not when
> de-spolling responses.
>
> We also add an extra check in add_id_to_freelist to make
> sure that the 'struct request' was not NULL - as we cannot
> pass a NULL to __blk_end_request_all, otherwise that crashes
> (and all the operations that the response is dealing with
> end up with __blk_end_request_all).
>
> Lastly we also print the name of the operation that failed.
>
> [v1: s/BUG/WARN/ suggested by Stefano]
> [v2: Add extra check in add_id_to_freelist]
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> ---
> drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> index 60eed4b..c7ef8a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> @@ -144,11 +144,22 @@ static int get_id_from_freelist(struct blkfront_info *info)
> static void add_id_to_freelist(struct blkfront_info *info,
> unsigned long id)
> {
> + BUG_ON(info->shadow[id].req.u.rw.id != id);
> info->shadow[id].req.u.rw.id = info->shadow_free;
> + BUG_ON(info->shadow[id].request == NULL);
> info->shadow[id].request = NULL;
> info->shadow_free = id;
> }

Like Jan said, it would be best to change the two BUG_ON into WARN_ON
and return an error.


> +static const char *op_name(int op)
> +{
> + const char *names[BLKIF_OP_DISCARD+1] = {
> + "read" , "write", "barrier", "flush", "reserved", "discard"};
> +
> + if (op > BLKIF_OP_DISCARD)
> + return "unknown";
> + return names[op];
> +}

Considering that op is an int, shoudn't we check for negative values
too?


> static int xlbd_reserve_minors(unsigned int minor, unsigned int nr)
> {
> unsigned int end = minor + nr;
> @@ -746,6 +757,18 @@ static irqreturn_t blkif_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>
> bret = RING_GET_RESPONSE(&info->ring, i);
> id = bret->id;
> + /*
> + * The backend has messed up and given us an id that we would
> + * never have given to it (we stamp it up to BLK_RING_SIZE -
> + * look in get_id_from_freelist.
> + */
> + if (id >= BLK_RING_SIZE) {
> + /* We can't safely get the 'struct request' as
> + * the id is busted. So limp along. */
> + WARN(1, "%s: response to %s has incorrect id (%d)!\n",
> + info->gd->disk_name, op_name(bret->operation), id);
> + continue;
> + }
> req = info->shadow[id].request;

Do you think it would be better to goto error_out, instead of continue?
I guess that depends on whether we expect the other requests to be in a
good shape or not...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-01 13:01    [W:0.216 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site