On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 21:42:05, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> On Apr 15 13:35, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:27:21PM +0300, Dmitry Tikhov wrote:
> > > Since there is no else after nvme_dsm_cb invocation, metadata associated
> > > with non-zero block range is currently zeroed. Also this behaviour leads
> > > to segfault since we schedule iocb->bh two times. First when entering
> > > nvme_dsm_cb with iocb->idx == iocb->nr and second on call stack unwinding
> > > by calling blk_aio_pwrite_zeroes and subsequent nvme_dsm_cb callback
> > > because of missing else statement.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Tikhov <d.ti...@yadro.com>
> > > ---
> > > hw/nvme/ctrl.c | 7 ++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/nvme/ctrl.c b/hw/nvme/ctrl.c
> > > index 03760ddeae..7ebd2aa326 100644
> > > --- a/hw/nvme/ctrl.c
> > > +++ b/hw/nvme/ctrl.c
> > > @@ -2372,11 +2372,12 @@ static void nvme_dsm_md_cb(void *opaque, int ret)
> > > }
> > >
> > > nvme_dsm_cb(iocb, 0);
> > > + } else {
> > > + iocb->aiocb = blk_aio_pwrite_zeroes(ns->blkconf.blk,
> > > nvme_moff(ns, slba),
> > > + nvme_m2b(ns, nlb),
> > > BDRV_REQ_MAY_UNMAP,
> > > + nvme_dsm_cb, iocb);
> > > }
> >
> > Instead of the 'else', just insert an early 'return;' after nvme_dsm_cb()
> > like
> > the earlier condition above here. Otherwise, looks good, and thanks for the
> > fix.
>
> Dmitry,
>
> Agree with Keith - also, please add
>
> Fixes: d7d1474fd85d ("hw/nvme: reimplement dsm to allow cancellation")
>
> Thanks again!
Ok, will do. Can i change patch subject text or it should stay
the same between submissions?
