* [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized @ 2020-01-09 13:17 Dmitrii Dolgov 2020-01-09 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 14:45 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Dmitrii Dolgov @ 2020-01-09 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: axboe, io-uring; +Cc: Dmitrii Dolgov With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft such request to io_uring. More details about configuration: [global] filename=/dev/vda rw=randread bs=256k direct=1 time_based=1 randrepeat=1 gtod_reduce=1 [fiotest] fio test.fio \ --readonly \ --ioengine=io_uring \ --iodepth 1024 \ --fixedbufs \ --hipri \ --numjobs=1 \ --runtime=10 Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Dolgov <[email protected]> --- fs/io_uring.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) I'm not entirely sure if my analysis is correct, but since this change fixes the issue for me, I've decided to post it. diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c index c770c2c0eb52..c5e69dfc0221 100644 --- a/fs/io_uring.c +++ b/fs/io_uring.c @@ -1232,7 +1232,8 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) do_free: kmem_cache_free_bulk(req_cachep, rb->to_free, rb->reqs); percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free); - percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); + if (ctx->file_data) + percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); rb->to_free = rb->need_iter = 0; } -- 2.21.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 13:17 [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized Dmitrii Dolgov @ 2020-01-09 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 14:51 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 14:45 ` Jens Axboe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitrii Dolgov, axboe, io-uring On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: > With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed > to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer > dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting > enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of > fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I > guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft > such request to io_uring. I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the problem is probably deeper. 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs and put only as much. 2. Jens, there is another line bothering me, could you take a look? io_free_req_many() { ... if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) ...; else rb->reqs[i] = NULL; ... } It zeroes rb->reqs[i], calls __io_req_aux_free(), but did not free memory for the request itself. Is it as intended? > > More details about configuration: > > [global] > filename=/dev/vda > rw=randread > bs=256k > direct=1 > time_based=1 > randrepeat=1 > gtod_reduce=1 > > [fiotest] > > fio test.fio \ > --readonly \ > --ioengine=io_uring \ > --iodepth 1024 \ > --fixedbufs \ > --hipri \ > --numjobs=1 \ > --runtime=10 > > Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Dolgov <[email protected]> > --- > fs/io_uring.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > I'm not entirely sure if my analysis is correct, but since this change > fixes the issue for me, I've decided to post it. > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > index c770c2c0eb52..c5e69dfc0221 100644 > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > @@ -1232,7 +1232,8 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > do_free: > kmem_cache_free_bulk(req_cachep, rb->to_free, rb->reqs); > percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free); > - percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); > + if (ctx->file_data) > + percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); > rb->to_free = rb->need_iter = 0; > } > > -- Pavel Begunkov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 14:51 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 16:04 ` Dmitry Dolgov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Begunkov, Dmitrii Dolgov, io-uring On 1/9/20 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: >> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed >> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer >> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting >> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of >> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I >> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft >> such request to io_uring. > > I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the > problem is probably deeper. > > 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though > there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs > and put only as much. Agree on the fixed file refs, there's a bug there where it assumes they are all still fixed. See below - Dmitrii, use this patch for testing instead of the other one! > 2. Jens, there is another line bothering me, could you take a look? > > io_free_req_many() > { > ... > if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) ...; > else > rb->reqs[i] = NULL; > ... > } > > It zeroes rb->reqs[i], calls __io_req_aux_free(), but did not free > memory for the request itself. Is it as intended? We free them at the end of that function, in bulk. But we can't do that with the aux data. diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c index 32aee149f652..b5dcf6c800ef 100644 --- a/fs/io_uring.c +++ b/fs/io_uring.c @@ -1218,6 +1218,8 @@ struct req_batch { static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) { + int fixed_refs = 0; + if (!rb->to_free) return; if (rb->need_iter) { @@ -1227,8 +1229,10 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) for (i = 0; i < rb->to_free; i++) { struct io_kiocb *req = rb->reqs[i]; - if (req->flags & REQ_F_FIXED_FILE) + if (req->flags & REQ_F_FIXED_FILE) { req->file = NULL; + fixed_refs++; + } if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) inflight++; else @@ -1255,8 +1259,9 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) } do_free: kmem_cache_free_bulk(req_cachep, rb->to_free, rb->reqs); + if (fixed_refs) + percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, fixed_refs); percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free); - percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); rb->to_free = rb->need_iter = 0; } -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 14:51 ` Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 15:23 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 15:34 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 16:04 ` Dmitry Dolgov 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe, Dmitrii Dolgov, io-uring On 1/9/2020 5:51 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/9/20 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: >>> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed >>> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer >>> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting >>> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of >>> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I >>> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft >>> such request to io_uring. >> >> I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the >> problem is probably deeper. >> >> 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though >> there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs >> and put only as much. > > Agree on the fixed file refs, there's a bug there where it assumes they > are all still fixed. See below - Dmitrii, use this patch for testing > instead of the other one! > >> 2. Jens, there is another line bothering me, could you take a look? >> >> io_free_req_many() >> { >> ... >> if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) ...; >> else >> rb->reqs[i] = NULL; >> ... >> } >> >> It zeroes rb->reqs[i], calls __io_req_aux_free(), but did not free >> memory for the request itself. Is it as intended? > > We free them at the end of that function, in bulk. But we can't do that > with the aux data. Right, we can't do that with the aux data. But we NULL a req in the array, which then passed to kmem_cache_free_bulk(). So, it won't be visible to the *_free_bulk(). Am I missing something? e.g. 1. initial reqs [req1 with files, ->io, etc] 2. set to NULL, so [NULL] 3. __io_req_aux_free(req) 4. bulk_free([NULL]); > > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > index 32aee149f652..b5dcf6c800ef 100644 > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > @@ -1218,6 +1218,8 @@ struct req_batch { > > static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > { > + int fixed_refs = 0; > + If all are fixed, then @rb->need_iter == false (see io_req_multi_free()), and @fixed_refs will be left 0. How about to set it to rb->to_free, and zero+count for rb->need_iter == true? > if (!rb->to_free) > return; > if (rb->need_iter) { > @@ -1227,8 +1229,10 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > for (i = 0; i < rb->to_free; i++) { > struct io_kiocb *req = rb->reqs[i]; > > - if (req->flags & REQ_F_FIXED_FILE) > + if (req->flags & REQ_F_FIXED_FILE) { > req->file = NULL; > + fixed_refs++; > + } > if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) > inflight++; > else > @@ -1255,8 +1259,9 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > } > do_free: > kmem_cache_free_bulk(req_cachep, rb->to_free, rb->reqs); > + if (fixed_refs) > + percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, fixed_refs); > percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free); > - percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); > rb->to_free = rb->need_iter = 0; > } > -- Pavel Begunkov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 15:23 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 15:32 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 15:34 ` Jens Axboe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Begunkov, Dmitrii Dolgov, io-uring On 1/9/20 8:17 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 1/9/2020 5:51 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 1/9/20 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: >>>> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed >>>> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer >>>> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting >>>> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of >>>> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I >>>> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft >>>> such request to io_uring. >>> >>> I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the >>> problem is probably deeper. >>> >>> 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though >>> there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs >>> and put only as much. >> >> Agree on the fixed file refs, there's a bug there where it assumes they >> are all still fixed. See below - Dmitrii, use this patch for testing >> instead of the other one! >> >>> 2. Jens, there is another line bothering me, could you take a look? >>> >>> io_free_req_many() >>> { >>> ... >>> if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) ...; >>> else >>> rb->reqs[i] = NULL; >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> It zeroes rb->reqs[i], calls __io_req_aux_free(), but did not free >>> memory for the request itself. Is it as intended? >> >> We free them at the end of that function, in bulk. But we can't do that >> with the aux data. > > Right, we can't do that with the aux data. But we NULL a req in the > array, which then passed to kmem_cache_free_bulk(). So, it won't be > visible to the *_free_bulk(). Am I missing something? > > e.g. > 1. initial reqs [req1 with files, ->io, etc] > 2. set to NULL, so [NULL] > 3. __io_req_aux_free(req) > 4. bulk_free([NULL]); Yeah that looks wrong, I don't think you're missing something. We should just use the flags check again. I'll double check this in testing now. diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c index 49622a320317..d7a77830a2f2 100644 --- a/fs/io_uring.c +++ b/fs/io_uring.c @@ -1235,8 +1235,6 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) } if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) inflight++; - else - rb->reqs[i] = NULL; __io_req_aux_free(req); } if (!inflight) @@ -1246,7 +1244,7 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) for (i = 0; i < rb->to_free; i++) { struct io_kiocb *req = rb->reqs[i]; - if (req) { + if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) list_del(&req->inflight_entry); if (!--inflight) break; -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 15:23 ` Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 15:32 ` Pavel Begunkov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe, Dmitrii Dolgov, io-uring On 1/9/2020 6:23 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/9/20 8:17 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 1/9/2020 5:51 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 1/9/20 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: >>>>> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed >>>>> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer >>>>> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting >>>>> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of >>>>> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I >>>>> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft >>>>> such request to io_uring. >>>> >>>> I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the >>>> problem is probably deeper. >>>> >>>> 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though >>>> there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs >>>> and put only as much. >>> >>> Agree on the fixed file refs, there's a bug there where it assumes they >>> are all still fixed. See below - Dmitrii, use this patch for testing >>> instead of the other one! >>> >>>> 2. Jens, there is another line bothering me, could you take a look? >>>> >>>> io_free_req_many() >>>> { >>>> ... >>>> if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) ...; >>>> else >>>> rb->reqs[i] = NULL; >>>> ... >>>> } >>>> >>>> It zeroes rb->reqs[i], calls __io_req_aux_free(), but did not free >>>> memory for the request itself. Is it as intended? >>> >>> We free them at the end of that function, in bulk. But we can't do that >>> with the aux data. >> >> Right, we can't do that with the aux data. But we NULL a req in the >> array, which then passed to kmem_cache_free_bulk(). So, it won't be >> visible to the *_free_bulk(). Am I missing something? >> >> e.g. >> 1. initial reqs [req1 with files, ->io, etc] >> 2. set to NULL, so [NULL] >> 3. __io_req_aux_free(req) >> 4. bulk_free([NULL]); > > Yeah that looks wrong, I don't think you're missing something. We > should just use the flags check again. I'll double check this in > testing now. Great, thanks! BTW, if by any chance you missed it, there was another comment in my previous mail regarding your fix for the put problem. > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > index 49622a320317..d7a77830a2f2 100644 > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > @@ -1235,8 +1235,6 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > } > if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) > inflight++; > - else > - rb->reqs[i] = NULL; > __io_req_aux_free(req); > } > if (!inflight) > @@ -1246,7 +1244,7 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > for (i = 0; i < rb->to_free; i++) { > struct io_kiocb *req = rb->reqs[i]; > > - if (req) { > + if (req->flags & REQ_F_INFLIGHT) > list_del(&req->inflight_entry); > if (!--inflight) > break; > -- Pavel Begunkov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 15:23 ` Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 15:34 ` Jens Axboe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Begunkov, Dmitrii Dolgov, io-uring On 1/9/20 8:17 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c >> index 32aee149f652..b5dcf6c800ef 100644 >> --- a/fs/io_uring.c >> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c >> @@ -1218,6 +1218,8 @@ struct req_batch { >> >> static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) >> { >> + int fixed_refs = 0; >> + > > If all are fixed, then @rb->need_iter == false (see > io_req_multi_free()), and @fixed_refs will be left 0. How about to set > it to rb->to_free, and zero+count for rb->need_iter == true? Good catch, I'll make that change. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 14:51 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 16:04 ` Dmitry Dolgov 2020-01-09 16:19 ` Jens Axboe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Dolgov @ 2020-01-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 07:51:28AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/9/20 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: > >> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed > >> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer > >> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting > >> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of > >> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I > >> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft > >> such request to io_uring. > > > > I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the > > problem is probably deeper. > > > > 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though > > there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs > > and put only as much. > > Agree on the fixed file refs, there's a bug there where it assumes they > are all still fixed. See below - Dmitrii, use this patch for testing > instead of the other one! Yes, the patch from this email also fixes the issue. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 16:04 ` Dmitry Dolgov @ 2020-01-09 16:19 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitry Dolgov; +Cc: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring On 1/9/20 9:04 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 07:51:28AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 1/9/20 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 1/9/2020 4:17 PM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: >>>> With combination of --fixedbufs and an old version of fio I've managed >>>> to get a strange situation, when doing io_iopoll_complete NULL pointer >>>> dereference on file_data was caused in io_free_req_many. Interesting >>>> enough, the very same configuration doesn't fail on a newest version of >>>> fio (the old one is fc220349e4514, the new one is 2198a6b5a9f4), but I >>>> guess it still makes sense to have this check if it's possible to craft >>>> such request to io_uring. >>> >>> I didn't looked up why it could become NULL in the first place, but the >>> problem is probably deeper. >>> >>> 1. I don't see why it puts @rb->to_free @file_data->refs, even though >>> there could be non-fixed reqs. It needs to count REQ_F_FIXED_FILE reqs >>> and put only as much. >> >> Agree on the fixed file refs, there's a bug there where it assumes they >> are all still fixed. See below - Dmitrii, use this patch for testing >> instead of the other one! > > Yes, the patch from this email also fixes the issue. Great, thanks for testing, I'll add your Tested-by to the commit. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized 2020-01-09 13:17 [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized Dmitrii Dolgov 2020-01-09 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov @ 2020-01-09 14:45 ` Jens Axboe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2020-01-09 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitrii Dolgov, io-uring On 1/9/20 6:17 AM, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote: > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > index c770c2c0eb52..c5e69dfc0221 100644 > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > @@ -1232,7 +1232,8 @@ static void io_free_req_many(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct req_batch *rb) > do_free: > kmem_cache_free_bulk(req_cachep, rb->to_free, rb->reqs); > percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free); > - percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); > + if (ctx->file_data) > + percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); > rb->to_free = rb->need_iter = 0; > } Can you check with just the two ref_put lines swapped? Ala: percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->file_data->refs, rb->to_free); percpu_ref_put_many(&ctx->refs, rb->to_free); -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-01-09 16:19 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-01-09 13:17 [RFC] Check if file_data is initialized Dmitrii Dolgov 2020-01-09 14:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 14:51 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 15:17 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 15:23 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 15:32 ` Pavel Begunkov 2020-01-09 15:34 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 16:04 ` Dmitry Dolgov 2020-01-09 16:19 ` Jens Axboe 2020-01-09 14:45 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox