lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.27-rc1: IP: iov_iter_advance+0x2e/0x90


On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> Steps to reproduce:
>
> # while true; do ./ftest03; done
>
> ftest03 from LTP 20080603

Hmm. The oops disassembles to

-12: 4c 8b 07 mov (%rdi),%r8
-9: 48 8b 4f 10 mov 0x10(%rdi),%rcx
-5: 48 85 f6 test %rsi,%rsi
-2: 75 17 jne 0x42
0: 49 83 78 08 00 cmpq $0x0,0x8(%r8) <---
5: 75 07 jne 0xe
7: 48 83 7f 18 00 cmpq $0x0,0x18(%rdi)
c: 75 09 jne 0x17

So it looks like we just overflowed %r8 to a new page and you presumably
have DEBUG_PAGEALLOC on.

(And yes, I see in the oops that you do)

> RIP [<ffffffff8026190e>] iov_iter_advance+0x2e/0x90
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff80263452>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x1e2/0x710
> [<ffffffff8040cfd0>] ? _spin_unlock+0x30/0x60
> [<ffffffff80263e0f>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x29f/0x450
> [<ffffffff80264026>] generic_file_aio_write+0x66/0xd0
> [<ffffffff802c9506>] ext3_file_write+0x26/0xc0
> [<ffffffff80264250>] ? generic_file_aio_read+0x0/0x670
> [<ffffffff802c94e0>] ? ext3_file_write+0x0/0xc0
> [<ffffffff8028921b>] do_sync_readv_writev+0xeb/0x130
> [<ffffffff8025284d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [<ffffffff802449c0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> [<ffffffff80289055>] ? rw_copy_check_uvector+0x95/0x130
> [<ffffffff80289953>] do_readv_writev+0xc3/0x120
> [<ffffffff8025284d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [<ffffffff802527b5>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xd5/0x160
> [<ffffffff8025284d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [<ffffffff802899e9>] vfs_writev+0x39/0x60
> [<ffffffff80289d60>] sys_writev+0x50/0x90
> [<ffffffff8020b65b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> 0xffffffff8026190e is in iov_iter_advance (mm/filemap.c:1882).
> 1877
> 1878 /*
> 1879 * The !iov->iov_len check ensures we skip over unlikely
> 1880 * zero-length segments (without overruning the iovec).
> 1881 */
> 1882 ===> while (bytes || unlikely(!iov->iov_len && i->count)) {

And yes, that oopsing op would be the one that loads 'iov->iov_len'.

So it very much looks like iov_iter_advance() advances past the end of the
iov array. We've had issues like that before. And I bet it's due to a
combination of Nick's commit f7009264c519603b8ec67c881bd368a56703cfc9
("iov_iter_advance() fix") and 124d3b7041f9a0ca7c43a6293e1cae4576c32fd5
("fix writev regression: pan hanging unkillable and un-straceable").

It's simply _not_ acceptable to look at iov->iov_len when 'bytes' has gone
down to zero, because there may be no 'iov' left!

Nick?

That said, I do think that we have another issue with iovec's - I think we
should strive to always pass in the number of iovec's when we pass a
pointer to an iovec, in addition to the bytes. The sad part is that
'iov_iter_advance' actually -has- the count, but it's the byte count
remaining, not the iovec's remaining.

In this particular case, the trivial fix _may_ be to just change the order
of testing iov->iov_len && i->count, but I really think we should also
count actual iov entries and pass them around (and keep them updated).

So does this (hacky, ugly) patch fix it for you?

Linus

---
mm/filemap.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index 42bbc69..d97d1ad 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -1879,7 +1879,7 @@ void iov_iter_advance(struct iov_iter *i, size_t bytes)
* The !iov->iov_len check ensures we skip over unlikely
* zero-length segments (without overruning the iovec).
*/
- while (bytes || unlikely(!iov->iov_len && i->count)) {
+ while (bytes || unlikely(i->count && !iov->iov_len)) {
int copy;

copy = min(bytes, iov->iov_len - base);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-30 22:17    [W:0.057 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site