# [OmniOS-discuss] Ang: Re: Two panics now while writing eager zeros to zvols

Dan McDonald danmcd at omniti.com
Tue Oct 13 17:52:37 UTC 2015

- Previous message: [OmniOS-discuss] Ang: Re: Two panics now while writing eager zeros to zvols
- Next message: [OmniOS-discuss] Ang: Re: Two panics now while writing eager zeros to zvols
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    My bad.  I built this with bloody and forgot the flag day for modules. I'll need to build it for 014 specifically.

    Dan

    Sent from my iPhone (typos, autocorrect, and all)

    > On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Richard Jahnel <rjahnel at ellipseinc.com> wrote:
    >
    > I'm probably doing it wrong, but I have failed to get this to work.
    >
    > When attempting to boot into the test environment I got something along the lines of
    >
    > stmf_sbd: undefined symbol '__stack_chk_fail'
    > stmf_sbd: undefined symbol '__stack_chk_guard'
    >
    > unable to load module stmf_sbd
    >
    > My version information below.
    >
    > OmniOS 5.11     omnios-f090f73  September 2015
    >
    > # cat /etc/release
    >  OmniOS v11 r151014
    >  Copyright 2015 OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved.
    >  Use is subject to license terms.
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Dan McDonald [mailto:danmcd at omniti.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:40 AM
    > To: Johan Kragsterman; Dan McDonald
    > Cc: wuffers; Richard Jahnel; imemo; omnios-discuss at lists.omniti.com
    > Subject: Re: Ang: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] Two panics now while writing eager zeros to zvols
    >
    >
    >> On Oct 10, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Johan Kragsterman <johan.kragsterman at capvert.se> wrote:
    >>
    >> Dan, is this upstreamed at all...?
    >
    > No it's not.  The following not-yet-upstreamed diff is a subset of a larger fix from illumos-nexenta:
    >
    > diff --git a/usr/src/uts/common/io/comstar/lu/stmf_sbd/sbd_scsi.c b/usr/src/uts/common/io/comstar/lu/stmf_sbd/sbd_scsi.c
    > index cb6e115..7242d15 100644
    > --- a/usr/src/uts/common/io/comstar/lu/stmf_sbd/sbd_scsi.c
    > +++ b/usr/src/uts/common/io/comstar/lu/stmf_sbd/sbd_scsi.c
    > @@ -2347,6 +2347,7 @@ write_same_xfer_done:
    >                if (scmd->flags & SBD_SCSI_CMD_XFER_FAIL) {
    >                        stmf_scsilib_send_status(task, STATUS_CHECK,
    >                            STMF_SAA_WRITE_ERROR);
    > +                       ret = (int)SBD_FAILURE;
    >                } else {
    >                        ret = sbd_write_same_data(task, scmd);
    >                        if (ret != SBD_SUCCESS) { @@ -2355,15 +2356,24 @@ write_same_xfer_done:
    >                        } else {
    >                                stmf_scsilib_send_status(task, STATUS_GOOD, 0);
    >                        }
    > +                       if ((scmd->flags & SBD_SCSI_CMD_TRANS_DATA) &&
    > +                           scmd->trans_data != NULL) {
    > +                               kmem_free(scmd->trans_data, scmd->trans_data_len);
    > +                               scmd->trans_data = NULL;
    > +                               scmd->trans_data_len = 0;
    > +                               scmd->flags &= ~SBD_SCSI_CMD_TRANS_DATA;
    > +                       }
    >                }
    >                /*
    > -                * Only way we should get here is via handle_write_same(),
    > -                * and that should make the following assertion always pass.
    > +                * Do the send_status afterwards, because of a potential
    > +                * double-free problem.
    >                 */
    > -               ASSERT((scmd->flags & SBD_SCSI_CMD_TRANS_DATA) &&
    > -                   scmd->trans_data != NULL);
    > -               kmem_free(scmd->trans_data, scmd->trans_data_len);
    > -               scmd->flags &= ~SBD_SCSI_CMD_TRANS_DATA;
    > +               if (ret != SBD_SUCCESS) {
    > +                       stmf_scsilib_send_status(task, STATUS_CHECK,
    > +                           STMF_SAA_WRITE_ERROR);
    > +               } else {
    > +                       stmf_scsilib_send_status(task, STATUS_GOOD, 0);
    > +               }
    >                return;
    >        }
    >        sbd_do_write_same_xfer(task, scmd, dbuf, dbuf_reusable);
    >
    > It fixes a double-free in this path, which the eager-zeroes seems to tickle.
    >
    > I'm attaching an stmf_sbd binary as well.  People affected by this can try this binary by:
    >
    > 1.) beadm create test-be
    >
    > 2.) beadm mount test-be /mnt
    >
    > 3.) cp stmf_sbd /mnt/kernel/drv/amd64/stmf_sbd
    >
    > 4.) bootadm update-archive -R /mnt
    >
    > 5.) Reboot, watch for grub
    >
    > 6.) Select "test-be" from the grub menu.  This will be a boot-once-into-the-new-BE test.
    >
    > 7.) Try your eager-zero test.
    >
    > I look forward to seeing any experimental results.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Dan
    >
    > ________________________________
    >
    > The content of this e-mail (including any attachments) is strictly confidential and may be commercially sensitive. If you are not, or believe you may not be, the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies.

- Previous message: [OmniOS-discuss] Ang: Re: Two panics now while writing eager zeros to zvols
- Next message: [OmniOS-discuss] Ang: Re: Two panics now while writing eager zeros to zvols
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the OmniOS-discuss mailing list