| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1405210954110.1579@denkbrett>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:07:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>
cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hanging aio process
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Sebastian Ott
> <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Sebastian Ott
> >> <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Sebastian Ott wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> >> >> > It is entirely possible the bug isn't
> >> >> > caused by the referenced commit, as the commit you're pointing to merely
> >> >> > makes io_destroy() syscall wait for all aio outstanding to complete
> >> >> > before returning.
> >> >>
> >> >> I cannot reproduce this when I revert said commit (on top of 14186fe). If
> >> >> that matters - the arch is s390.
> >> >
> >> > Hm, ok - maybe that commit is really just highlighting a refcounting bug.
> >> > I just compared traces for a good and a few bad cases. The good case:
> >> > # tracer: function
> >> > #
> >> > # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 16/16 #P:4
> >> > #
> >> > # _-----=> irqs-off
> >> > # / _----=> need-resched
> >> > # | / _---=> hardirq/softirq
> >> > # || / _--=> preempt-depth
> >> > # ||| / delay
> >> > # TASK-PID CPU# |||| TIMESTAMP FUNCTION
> >> > # | | | |||| | |
> >> > fio-732 [003] .... 17.989315: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > fio-739 [003] .... 18.000563: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 18.031673: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 18.031679: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > fio-737 [003] .... 18.038765: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 18.062488: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 18.062494: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > kworker/3:1-57 [003] .... 18.062499: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> > kworker/3:1-57 [003] .... 18.062506: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 18.072275: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > fio-738 [003] .... 18.102419: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > <idle>-0 [003] .ns. 18.111668: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > kworker/3:1-57 [003] .... 18.111675: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 18.138035: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > <idle>-0 [003] .ns. 18.191665: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > kworker/3:1-57 [003] .... 18.191671: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> >
> >> > (4 fio workers, free_ioctx_reqs is called 4 times)
> >> >
> >> > One of the bad cases:
> >> > # tracer: function
> >> > #
> >> > # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 14/14 #P:4
> >> > #
> >> > # _-----=> irqs-off
> >> > # / _----=> need-resched
> >> > # | / _---=> hardirq/softirq
> >> > # || / _--=> preempt-depth
> >> > # ||| / delay
> >> > # TASK-PID CPU# |||| TIMESTAMP FUNCTION
> >> > # | | | |||| | |
> >> > fio-834 [000] .... 51.127359: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > <idle>-0 [000] ..s. 51.170237: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > fio-828 [001] .... 51.189717: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > fio-833 [001] ..s. 51.220178: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > <idle>-0 [000] .ns. 51.220230: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > kworker/0:3-661 [000] .... 51.220238: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> > <idle>-0 [001] .ns. 51.260188: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > kworker/1:2-103 [001] .... 51.260198: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> > fio-833 [002] .... 51.287602: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > udevd-868 [002] ..s1 51.332519: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > <idle>-0 [002] .ns. 51.450180: free_ioctx_reqs <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> > kworker/2:2-191 [002] .... 51.450191: free_ioctx <-process_one_work
> >> > fio-835 [003] .... 51.907530: kill_ioctx <-SyS_io_destroy
> >> > ksoftirqd/3-19 [003] ..s. 52.000232: free_ioctx_users <-percpu_ref_kill_rcu
> >> >
> >> > (1 fio worker in D state, free_ioctx_reqs is called 3 times)
> >>
> >>
> >> Looking at the second trace: the first 3 io_destroy() calls cause
> >> free_ioctx_reqs(), but the last one does not call free_ioctx_reqs().
> >> Do you have more logs after the last line?
> >
> > Nope that was all.
> >
> >> If there is no more
> >> free_ioctx_reqs() then it means something keeps ctx->reqs refcounter.
> >> I suggest to add some logging to kernel to figure out what is the
> >> refcount value at this moment.
> >
> > Jep, I did that this morning (via atomic_read(&ctx->reqs.count) in
> > free_ioctx_users before percpu_ref_kill(&ctx->reqs); is called) and
> > the value was always the same
> > 1 + (1UL << 31)
> > even for the free_ioctx_users invocations that were not followed by
> > free_ioctx_reqs.
>
> Could you add atomic_read(&ctx->reqs.count) *after* the
> percpu_ref_kill(&ctx->reqs)?
I already did that and it didn't change, always 1 + (1UL << 31) in all
cases, before and after percpu_ref_kill(&ctx->reqs). I'm not really
familiar with this percpu_ref stuff but it looks like the initial
reference is dropped asynchronous.
Regards,
Sebastian
>
> before percpu_ref_kill() the refcounter is per-CPU one and correctly
> calculate the real value you need to take &ctx->reqs.pcpu_count into
> account. But after percpu_ref_kill() the reqs.count become the normal
> shared refcounter.
>
> >
> >>
> >> But *if* there was one more free_ioctx_reqs() that does not
> >> complete(ctx->requests_done) then it means the thread does not see
> >> value of requests_done field. It would make me believe there is a
> >> problem with memory reordering. I do not know whether s390 reorders
> >> stores, but anyway, could you please check this patch?
> >
> > Nope s390 doesn't reorder stores - I tried the patch anyway, but it didn't
> > help.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sebastian
> >>
> >> anatol:linux $ git diff
> >> diff --git a/fs/aio.c b/fs/aio.c
> >> index a0ed6c7..6e3c0bb 100644
> >> --- a/fs/aio.c
> >> +++ b/fs/aio.c
> >> @@ -514,6 +514,7 @@ static void free_ioctx_reqs(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> >> struct kioctx *ctx = container_of(ref, struct kioctx, reqs);
> >>
> >> /* At this point we know that there are no any in-flight requests */
> >> + rmb();
> >> if (ctx->requests_done)
> >> complete(ctx->requests_done);
> >>
> >> @@ -758,6 +759,7 @@ static void kill_ioctx(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >> struct kioctx *ctx,
> >> vm_munmap(ctx->mmap_base, ctx->mmap_size);
> >>
> >> ctx->requests_done = requests_done;
> >> + wmb();
> >> percpu_ref_kill(&ctx->users);
> >> } else {
> >> if (requests_done)
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
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