Re: [syzbot] KCSAN: data-race in sbitmap_queue_clear / sbitmap_queue_clear (3)

[Jens Axboe]

On 10/25/21 10:03 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 17:40, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/25/21 8:29 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 15:36, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> write to 0xffffe8ffffd145b8 of 4 bytes by interrupt on cpu 1:
>>>>>  sbitmap_queue_clear+0xca/0xf0 lib/sbitmap.c:606
>>>>>  blk_mq_put_tag+0x82/0x90
>>>>>  __blk_mq_free_request+0x114/0x180 block/blk-mq.c:507
>>>>>  blk_mq_free_request+0x2c8/0x340 block/blk-mq.c:541
>>>>>  __blk_mq_end_request+0x214/0x230 block/blk-mq.c:565
>>>>>  blk_mq_end_request+0x37/0x50 block/blk-mq.c:574
>>>>>  lo_complete_rq+0xca/0x170 drivers/block/loop.c:541
>>>>>  blk_complete_reqs block/blk-mq.c:584 [inline]
>>>>>  blk_done_softirq+0x69/0x90 block/blk-mq.c:589
>>>>>  __do_softirq+0x12c/0x26e kernel/softirq.c:558
>>>>>  run_ksoftirqd+0x13/0x20 kernel/softirq.c:920
>>>>>  smpboot_thread_fn+0x22f/0x330 kernel/smpboot.c:164
>>>>>  kthread+0x262/0x280 kernel/kthread.c:319
>>>>>  ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
>>>>>
>>>>> write to 0xffffe8ffffd145b8 of 4 bytes by interrupt on cpu 0:
>>>>>  sbitmap_queue_clear+0xca/0xf0 lib/sbitmap.c:606
>>>>>  blk_mq_put_tag+0x82/0x90
>>>>>  __blk_mq_free_request+0x114/0x180 block/blk-mq.c:507
>>>>>  blk_mq_free_request+0x2c8/0x340 block/blk-mq.c:541
>>>>>  __blk_mq_end_request+0x214/0x230 block/blk-mq.c:565
>>>>>  blk_mq_end_request+0x37/0x50 block/blk-mq.c:574
>>>>>  lo_complete_rq+0xca/0x170 drivers/block/loop.c:541
>>>>>  blk_complete_reqs block/blk-mq.c:584 [inline]
>>>>>  blk_done_softirq+0x69/0x90 block/blk-mq.c:589
>>>>>  __do_softirq+0x12c/0x26e kernel/softirq.c:558
>>>>>  run_ksoftirqd+0x13/0x20 kernel/softirq.c:920
>>>>>  smpboot_thread_fn+0x22f/0x330 kernel/smpboot.c:164
>>>>>  kthread+0x262/0x280 kernel/kthread.c:319
>>>>>  ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
>>>>
>>>> This is just a per-cpu alloc hint, it's racy by nature. What's the
>>>> preferred way to silence these?
>>>
>>> That was my guess, but couldn't quite say. We started looking at
>>> write/write races as more likely to be harmful (vs. just read/write),
>>> and are inclined to let syzbot send out more of such reports. Marking
>>> intentional ones would be ideal so we'll be left with the
>>> unintentional ones.
>>>
>>> I would probably use WRITE_ONCE(), just to make sure the compiler
>>> doesn't play games here; or if the code is entirely tolerant to even
>>> the compiler miscompiling things, wrap the thing in data_race().
>>
>> It's entirely tolerant, so something like this would do it?
> 
> Yup, looks reasonable,
> 
> Acked-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>

OK thanks, I'll queue it up for 5.16.

-- 
Jens Axboe