Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.64.0804291821220.18333@citi.umich.edu>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:21:02 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"david m. richter" <richterd@...i.umich.edu>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...ian.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [LTP/VFS] fcntl SETLEASE fails on ramfs/tmpfs

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:54:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:42:48 +0800
> > "Bryan Wu" <cooloney@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi folk,
> > > 
> > > This days I am digging into this LTP bug reported on our Blackfin test
> > > machine, but I think it is general for other system.
> > > https://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/project/uclinux-dist/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_id=141&tracker_item_id=3743
> > > 
> > > And I also found Kumar Gala reported this similar bug before.
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/14/388
> > > 
> > > 1, when opening and creating a new on ramfs/tmpfs, the dentry->d_count
> > > will be added one as below:
> > > --
> > > ramfs_mknod(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode, dev_t dev)
> > > {
> > > |_______struct inode * inode = ramfs_get_inode(dir->i_sb, mode, dev);
> > > |_______int error = -ENOSPC;
> > > 
> > > |_______if (inode) {
> > > |_______|_______if (dir->i_mode & S_ISGID) {
> > > |_______|_______|_______inode->i_gid = dir->i_gid;
> > > |_______|_______|_______if (S_ISDIR(mode))
> > > |_______|_______|_______|_______inode->i_mode |= S_ISGID;
> > > |_______|_______}
> > > |_______|_______d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
> > > |_______|_______dget(dentry);|__/* Extra count - pin the dentry in core */
> > > |_______|_______error = 0;
> > > |_______|_______dir->i_mtime = dir->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
> > > |_______}
> > > |_______return error;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > The dget(dentry) call introduces an extra count, why?
> > > it is the same in tmpfs.
> > 
> > Because those dentries have no backing store.  Their sole existance is in
> > the dentry cache which is normally reclaimable.  But we can't reclaim these
> > dentries because there is nowhere from where they can be reestablished.
> > 
> > > 2, when calling  fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE,F_WRLCK), it will return -EAGAIN
> > > --
> > > |_______if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
> > > |_______    && ((atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) > 1)
> > > |_______|_______|| (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
> > > |_______|_______goto out;
> > > --
> > 
> > Sucky heuristic.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > 
> > > because the dentry->d_count will be 2 not 1. I tested ext2 on Blackfin, it is 1.
> > > 
> > > 3, so I guess maybe the dget(dentry) of ramfs_mknod is useless. But
> > > after remove this dget(),
> > > the ramfs can not be mounted as rootfs at all.
> > 
> > Interesting.  Presumably it got reclaimed synchronously somehow.
> > 
> > > Is the bug in generic_setlease() or in the ramfs/tmpfs inode create function?
> > > 
> > > Of course, simply remove the test '((atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) >
> > > 1)' can workaround this issue.
> > 
> > I guess we should make the generic_setlease() heuristic smarter.
> > 
> > Of course the _reason_ for that heuristic is uncommented and lost in time. 
> > And one wonders what locking prevents it from being totally racy, and if
> > "none", what happens when the race hits.  Sigh.

	i'm not sure which particular kernel version we're talking about, 
but i think the intent was to rely on the BKL.  i noticed a couple cases 
where this didn't actually hold -- e.g., bruce has a patch queued to move 
the kmalloc in generic_setlease() so that it precedes the 
d_count/i_writecount checks and covers the race he mentions below.  an 
earlier patch closed a similar thing with get_write_access() when handling 
a truncate, etc.

	fyi (well, not you, bruce): relatedly, i have a set of patches to 
introduce per-inode lease enabling/disabling (so we can fully implement 
NFSv4.0 file delegations and v4.1 directory delegations) which expand the 
cases where leases are broken (e.g. unlink) and which make it somewhat 
more explicit when it's safe to lease/break.  perhaps the next merge 
window for the first set of them.


> Yes, I think the race is:
> 
> 	1. generic_setlease(., F_WRLCK, .) checks d_count and i_count,
> 	   both are 1.
> 
> 	2. a read open comes in, calls break_lease which finds no lease
> 	   and continues happily on.
> 
> 	3. generic_setlease() sets the write lease.
> 
> The most likely consequences are that a local reader gets out-of-date
> data for a file that a Samba client has modified.
>
> I suppose that re-checking the d_count and i_count after step 3 might
> close the race.

	as things currently stand, i believe that race can only happen if 
the leaser is blocking on the kmalloc.  but yeah, the d_count check is 
pretty frail anyway ...


> > I suppose a stupid fix would be to set (and later clear) a new flag in
> > dentry.d_flags which means
> > 
> >   this dentry is pinned by a ram-backed device, so d_count==2 means
> >   "unused""
> > 
> > But it would be better to work out exactly what generic_setlease() is
> > trying to do there, and do it in a better way.
> 
> Yes.  What it's supposed to do is provide exclusion between opens and
> write leases.
> 
> We already have a mechanism that provides exclusion between write opens
> and exec, using the i_writecount, so we're using that for read leases.
> I suppose it'd be possible to do something similar for write leases;
> would there be smp scalability problems associated with counting all the
> read opens of a given inode?  Other problems?
> 
> Even with this problem solved, I'm not convinced write leases are very
> useful as implemented.  Their only current user is Samba, which uses
> them to grant exclusive access to given files to allow clients to cache
> writes.
> 
> Samba knows when to revoke that exclusive access because the lease
> subsystem signals it on a read open of the file.  It doesn't revoke on
> stat, however.  This causes problem.  E.g., say Samba takes out a lease
> and tells some client it can now cache its writes indefinitely.
> Meanwhile a local application (say, make) is polling that file for
> changes using stat.  They never see those changes.
> 
> The NFSv2/v3 server for some reason has its own one-off hack that
> reports the ctime as now for on any write-leased file, which leads
> people to complain about spurious rebuilds:
> 
> 	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9454
> 
> The one thing I suspect is *not* a really serious problem here is the
> reported LTP failure, since probably the only user of this is Samba,
> which probably doesn't do a lot of tmpfs exports, and in any case it can
> probably soldier on (if with degraded performance--how badly I don't
> know) without getting the write lease it wants.
> 
> --b.
> 
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists