lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec
Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:17:29 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > Johannes Thumshirn reported system goes the panic when using NVMe over
> > Fabrics loopback target with zram.
> >
> > The reason is zram expects each bvec in bio contains a single page
> > but nvme can attach a huge bulk of pages attached to the bio's bvec
> > so that zram's index arithmetic could be wrong so that out-of-bound
> > access makes panic.
> >
> > It can be solved by limiting max_sectors with SECTORS_PER_PAGE like
> > [1] but it makes zram slow because bio should split with each pages
> > so this patch makes zram aware of multiple pages in a bvec so it
> > could solve without any regression.
> >
> > [1] 0bc315381fe9, zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
> > bounds accesses
>
> This isn't a cleanup - it fixes a panic (or is it a BUG or is it an
> oops, or...)

I should have written more carefully.
Johannes reported the problem with fix[1] and Jens already sent it to the
mainline to fix it. However, during the discussion, we can solve the problem
nice way so this is revert of [1] plus solving the problem with other way
which no need to split bio.

Thanks.

>
> How serious is this bug? Should the fix be backported into -stable
> kernels? etc.
>
> A better description of the bug's behaviour would be appropriate.
>
> > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> > Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
> > Reported-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
>
> This signoff trail is confusing. It somewhat implies that Johannes
> authored the patch which I don't think is the case?
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-04 01:49    [W:1.975 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site