[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170112224624.GB1555@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:46:24 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Alan J. Wylie" <alan@...ie.me.uk>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 4.9.0 regression in pipe-backed iov_iter with systemd-nspawn
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:37:18PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:26:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Alan J. Wylie <alan@...ie.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Strace shows that the processes are hanging in write() and read() calls.
> >
> > If this is splice-related, I'm assuming that they aren't actually the
> > two ends of the same pipe, and there is somebody doing splice in the
> > middle.
> >
> > I'm not seeing that process. I'm assuming it's systemd. Can you try
> > to find it and strace that one too? Because that middle man is likely
> > the one that has problems (and is not able to splice from one pipe to
> > the other).
> >
> > Ugh. That one commit has had a lot of bugs in it already. We do not
> > have good splice test coverage, because almost nobody uses it.
>
> FWIW, I would really like to know what kind of files had been involved.
> There are two paths that can lead to default_file_splice_read():
> splice_direct_to_actor() -> do_splice_to() -> default_file_splice_read() and
> do_splice() -> do_splice_to() -> default_file_splice_read().
>
> The former only gets there for regular files and block devices. The latter
> is guaranteed that file is not a pipe. So
> * not a socket (have ->splice_read() of their own)
> * not a pipe or FIFO (neither path allows those)
> * not a block device (have ->splice_read() of their own)
> * not a regular file on a normal local fs (ditto)
>
> So what is it called for in that reproducer?
PS: what about the /proc/mounts contents? If it's something 9p-backed kvm,
your bisect might have been caught on the bug I'd mentioned - if the breakage
you are seeing in 4.9.3 has started after that commit and before the
backport of the fix, your bisect could converge there. Does the
reproducer trigger on 523ac9afc73a + cherry-pick of 8e54cadab447?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists