linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:44:21 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-)

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:48:10PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:57:03AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> 
> > > Oh, I didn't think we were talking about that. Hanging the close of
> > > the datafile fd contingent on some other FD's closure is a recipe for
> > > deadlock..
> > 
> > The discussion between Jan and Dave was concerning what happens when a user
> > calls
> > 
> > fd = open()
> > fnctl(...getlease...)
> > addr = mmap(fd...)
> > ib_reg_mr() <pin>
> > munmap(addr...)
> > close(fd)
> 
> I don't see how blocking close(fd) could work.

Well Dave was saying this _could_ work.  FWIW I'm not 100% sure it will but I
can't prove it won't..  Maybe we are all just touching a different part of this
elephant[1] but the above scenario or one without munmap is very reasonably
something a user would do.  So we can either allow the close to complete (my
current patches) or try to make it block like Dave is suggesting.

I don't disagree with Dave with the semantics being nice and clean for the
filesystem.  But the fact that RDMA, and potentially others, can "pass the
pins" to other processes is something I spent a lot of time trying to work out.

>
> Write it like this:
> 
>  fd = open()
>  uverbs = open(/dev/uverbs)
>  fnctl(...getlease...)
>  addr = mmap(fd...)
>  ib_reg_mr() <pin>
>  munmap(addr...)
>   <sigkill>
> 
> The order FD's are closed during sigkill is not deterministic, so when
> all the fputs happen during a kill'd exit we could end up blocking in
> close(fd) as close(uverbs) will come after in the close
> list. close(uverbs) is the thing that does the dereg_mr and releases
> the pin.

Of course, that is a different scenario which needs to be fixed in my patch
set.  Now that my servers are back up I can hopefully make progress.  (Power
was down for them yesterday).

> 
> We don't need complexity with dup to create problems.

No but that complexity _will_ come unless we "zombie" layout leases.

Ira

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

> 
> Jason
>