On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 14:29, David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 01.06.22 15:24, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:00:50AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 01.06.22 02:20, Tong Zhang wrote:
> >>> Hi David,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 9:19 AM David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27.04.22 22:51, Tong Zhang wrote:
> >>>>> assert(dbs->acb) is meant to check the return value of io_func per
> >>>>> documented in commit 6bee44ea34 ("dma: the passed io_func does not
> >>>>> return NULL"). However, there is a chance that after calling
> >>>>> aio_context_release(dbs->ctx); the dma_blk_cb function is called before
> >>>>> the assertion and dbs->acb is set to NULL again at line 121. Thus when
> >>>>> we run assert at line 181 it will fail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> softmmu/dma-helpers.c:181: dma_blk_cb: Assertion `dbs->acb' failed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reported-by: Francisco Londono <f.lond...@samsung.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tong Zhang <t.zha...@samsung.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> softmmu/dma-helpers.c | 2 +-
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/softmmu/dma-helpers.c b/softmmu/dma-helpers.c
> >>>>> index 7820fec54c..cb81017928 100644
> >>>>> --- a/softmmu/dma-helpers.c
> >>>>> +++ b/softmmu/dma-helpers.c
> >>>>> @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ static void dma_blk_cb(void *opaque, int ret)
> >>>>> aio_context_acquire(dbs->ctx);
> >>>>> dbs->acb = dbs->io_func(dbs->offset, &dbs->iov,
> >>>>> dma_blk_cb, dbs, dbs->io_func_opaque);
> >>>>> - aio_context_release(dbs->ctx);
> >>>>> assert(dbs->acb);
> >>>>> + aio_context_release(dbs->ctx);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void dma_aio_cancel(BlockAIOCB *acb)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm fairly new to that code, but I wonder what prevents dma_blk_cb() to
> >>>> run after you reshuffled the code?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> IMO if the assert is to test whether io_func returns a non-NULL value
> >>> shouldn't it be immediately after calling io_func.
> >>> Also... as suggested by commit 6bee44ea346aed24e12d525daf10542d695508db
> >>> > dma: the passed io_func does not return NULL
> >>
> >> Yes, but I just don't see how it would fix the assertion you document in
> >> the patch description. The locking change to fix the assertion doesn't
> >> make any sense to me, and most probably I am missing something important :)
> >
> > The other thread will invoke dma_blk_cb(), which modifies dbs->acb, when
> > it can take the lock. Therefore dbs->acb may contain a value different
> > from our io_func()'s return value by the time we perform the assertion
> > check (that's the race).
> >
> > This patch makes sense to me. Can you rephrase your concern?
>
> The locking is around dbs->io_func().
>
> aio_context_acquire(dbs->ctx);
> dbs->acb = dbs->io_func()
> aio_context_release(dbs->ctx);
>
>
> So where exactly would the lock that's now still held stop someone from
> modifying dbs->acb = NULL at the beginning of the function, which seems
> to be not protected by that lock?
>
> Maybe I'm missing some locking magic due to the lock being a recursive lock.
Tong Zhang: Can you share a backtrace of all threads when the
assertion failure occurs?
Stefan
