On Wed, Oct 17 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> 
> 
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > OK, the below should actually be safe, I don't know why I talked myself
> > into the next_sg stuff in the beginning. It's always safe to zero sg,
> > since it's a valid entry - nothing to save in ->page. Ingo, does this
> > work for you?
> 
> I really don't think this should work.
> 
> Doing "sg_next()" on a valid sg is *always* ok. So if the old code didn't 
> work, then "sg" wasn't valid to start with (and the code *after* the 
> sg_next() would have oopsed even if you try to avoid using sg_next.
> 
> So avoiding the "sg_next()" on the last entry is pointless. 

Yeah, I didn't quite understand why if sg was valid, why dereferencing
*(sg + 1)->page would crap out :/

quoted text
> Also, your patch makes the code almost totally unreadable, with that 
> subtle issue of the "if (bvprv && cluster)" case not triggering on the 
> first case, so the NULL initial sg is "safe".

Hmm I think it's quite readable, but perhaps that's just me :-). The
first is much cleaner, and the last part just reads 'if sg is not set
yet, set to list. otherwise, goto next entry'.

quoted text
> So at a guess, I think the *real* problem is simply that the passed-in 
> sglist was just too small. What guarantees that the sg list allocation 
> (apparently done by scsi_alloc_sgtable()) is big enough? 
> 
> If I read things right, scsi_alloc_sgtable() will allocate "cmd->use_sg" 
> SG enties, no? But I also notice that it does not seem to initialize the 
> SG allocation, so those SG entries contain random crap - including, 
> perhaps, a random - and bogus - chain pointer in sg->page..

Right, we allocate an sgtable that will hold ->use_sg entries, which
contains request->nr_phys_segments. And that should definitely fit.

Regarding the init of the sglist, that was the revert I was talking
about. We do need that memset() in there, so all those sg entries will
be properly zeroed.

quoted text
> Yes, we set sh->page *if* we create a chain, but if we don't chain, we 
> leave the old random contents around which in turn may include old and 
> stale chain pointers. Or am I missing something?
> 
> So when you added that "memset(sg, 0, sizeof(*sg))" into blk_rq_map_sg(), 
> you did it way too late - it needs to be done when the sg chain is 
> allocated, and for every entry (and then the "link" entry needs to be 
> linked in separately)
> 
> I think.

Yep, and that is what Ingo did test as well and it worked. For that
case, now libata is crapping out elsewhere in sg_next().

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/