linux-kernel - Re: nfs: infinite loop in fcntl(F

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]

Message-Id: <1207862436.8180.30.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:20:36 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Marc Eshel <eshel@...aden.ibm.com>,
	"Dr. J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...i.umich.edu>
Cc:	neilb@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nfs: infinite loop in fcntl(F_SETLKW)


On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 17:07 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 17:02 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 21:51 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > Another infinite loop, this one involving both client and server.
> > > 
> > > Basically what happens is that on the server nlm_fopen() calls
> > > nfsd_open() which returns -EACCES, to which nlm_fopen() returns
> > > NLM_LCK_DENIED.
> > > 
> > > On the client this will turn into a -EAGAIN (nlm_stat_to_errno()),
> > > which in will cause fcntl_setlk() to retry forever.
> > > 
> > > I _think_ the solution is to turn NLM_LCK_DENIED into ENOLCK for
> > > blocking locks, as NLM_LCK_BLOCKED is for the contended case.  For
> > > testing the lock leave NLM_LCK_DENIED as EAGAIN.  That still could be
> > > misleading, but at least there's no infinite loop in that case.
> > > 
> > > I've minimally tested this patch to verify that it cures the lockup,
> > > and that simple blocking locks keep working.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/lockd/clntproc.c |    3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux.orig/fs/lockd/clntproc.c	2008-04-02 13:34:57.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ linux/fs/lockd/clntproc.c	2008-04-10 21:23:46.000000000 +0200
> > > @@ -536,6 +536,9 @@ again:
> > >  		up_read(&host->h_rwsem);
> > >  	}
> > >  	status = nlm_stat_to_errno(resp->status);
> > > +	/* Don't return EAGAIN, as that would make fcntl_setlk() loop */
> > > +	if (status == -EAGAIN)
> > > +		status = -ENOLCK;
> > >  out_unblock:
> > >  	nlmclnt_finish_block(block);
> > >  	/* Cancel the blocked request if it is still pending */
> > 
> > 
> > Wait. There is something really weird going on here.
> > 
> > According to the spec, LCK_DENIED means 'the request failed' (i.e.
> > ENOLCK is definitely correct)
> > 
> > OTOH, LCK_DENIED_NOLOCKS and LCK_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD are both temporary
> > failures, the first because the server had a resource problem, and the
> > second because the server rebooted and is in the grace period (i.e.
> > EAGAIN would appear to be more appropriate). See
> > 
> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9629799/chap10.htm#tagcjh_11_02_02_02
> > 
> > AFAICS, the correct thing to do is to fix nlm_stat_to_errno() by
> > swapping the return values for NLM_LCK_DENIED and
> > NLM_LCK_DENIED_NOLOCKS/NLM_LCK_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD.
> > 
> > The problem is that there appears to be a similar confusion on the Linux
> > server side in nlmsvc_lock(). :-(
> 
> Duh... Sorry, EAGAIN is indeed the correct return value for fcntl() when
> the lock attempt failed. I should have reread the manpage/posix spec
> before replying.

OK. So the correct fix here should really be applied to fcntl_setlk().
There is absolutely no reason why we should be looping at all if the
filesystem has a ->lock() method.

In fact, this looping behaviour was introduced recently in commit
7723ec9777d9832849b76475b1a21a2872a40d20. Marc, Bruce, why was this
done, and how are filesystems now supposed to behave?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/