Message-ID: <b36eb4a26b6aff564c6ef850a3508c5b40141d46.camel@trillion01.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:42:20 -0400
From:   Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Pavel Begunkov>" <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Limit what can interrupt coredumps

On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 19:55 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/10/21 3:48 PM, Tony Battersby wrote:
> > On 8/5/21 9:06 AM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I didn't forgot about this remaining issue and I have kept thinking
> > > about it on and off.
> > > 
> > > I did try the following on 5.12.19:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/coredump.c b/fs/coredump.c
> > > index 07afb5ddb1c4..614fe7a54c1a 100644
> > > --- a/fs/coredump.c
> > > +++ b/fs/coredump.c
> > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/fs.h>
> > >  #include <linux/path.h>
> > >  #include <linux/timekeeping.h>
> > > +#include <linux/io_uring.h>
> > >  
> > >  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > >  #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
> > > @@ -625,6 +626,8 @@ void do_coredump(const kernel_siginfo_t
> > > *siginfo)
> > >                 need_suid_safe = true;
> > >         }
> > >  
> > > +       io_uring_files_cancel(current->files);
> > > +
> > >         retval = coredump_wait(siginfo->si_signo, &core_state);
> > >         if (retval < 0)
> > >                 goto fail_creds;
> > > --
> > > 2.32.0
> > > 
> > > with my current understanding, io_uring_files_cancel is supposed to
> > > cancel everything that might set the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL.
> > > 
> > > I must report that in my testing with generating a core dump
> > > through a
> > > pipe with the modif above, I still get truncated core dumps.
> > > 
> > > systemd is having a weird error:
> > > [ 2577.870742] systemd-coredump[4056]: Failed to get COMM: No such
> > > process
> > > 
> > > and nothing is captured
> > > 
> > > so I have replaced it with a very simple shell:
> > > $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern 
> > > > /home/lano1106/bin/pipe_core.sh %e %p
> > > 
> > > ~/bin $ cat pipe_core.sh 
> > > #!/bin/sh
> > > 
> > > cat > /home/lano1106/core/core.$1.$2
> > > 
> > > BFD: warning: /home/lano1106/core/core.test.10886 is truncated:
> > > expected core file size >= 24129536, found: 61440
> > > 
> > > I conclude from my attempt that maybe io_uring_files_cancel is not
> > > 100%
> > > cleaning everything that it should clean.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > I just ran into this problem also - coredumps from an io_uring
> > program
> > to a pipe are truncated.  But I am using kernel 5.10.57, which does
> > NOT
> > have commit 12db8b690010 ("entry: Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL")
> > or
> > commit 06af8679449d ("coredump: Limit what can interrupt coredumps").
> > Kernel 5.4 works though, so I bisected the problem to commit
> > f38c7e3abfba ("io_uring: ensure async buffered read-retry is setup
> > properly") in kernel 5.9.  Note that my io_uring program uses only
> > async
> > buffered reads, which may be why this particular commit makes a
> > difference to my program.
> > 
> > My io_uring program is a multi-purpose long-running program with many
> > threads.  Most threads don't use io_uring but a few of them do. 
> > Normally, my core dumps are piped to a program so that they can be
> > compressed before being written to disk, but I can also test writing
> > the
> > core dumps directly to disk.  This is what I have found:
> > 
> > *) Unpatched 5.10.57: if a thread that doesn't use io_uring triggers
> > a
> > coredump, the core file is written correctly, whether it is written
> > to
> > disk or piped to a program, even if another thread is using io_uring
> > at
> > the same time.
> > 
> > *) Unpatched 5.10.57: if a thread that uses io_uring triggers a
> > coredump, the core file is truncated, whether written directly to
> > disk
> > or piped to a program.
> > 
> > *) 5.10.57+backport 06af8679449d: if a thread that uses io_uring
> > triggers a coredump, and the core is written directly to disk, then
> > it
> > is written correctly.
> > 
> > *) 5.10.57+backport 06af8679449d: if a thread that uses io_uring
> > triggers a coredump, and the core is piped to a program, then it is
> > truncated.
> > 
> > *) 5.10.57+revert f38c7e3abfba: core dumps are written correctly,
> > whether written directly to disk or piped to a program.
> 
> That is very interesting. Like Olivier mentioned, it's not that actual
> commit, but rather the change of behavior implemented by it. Before
> that
> commit, we'd hit the async workers more often, whereas after we do the
> correct retry method where it's driven by the wakeup when the page is
> unlocked. This is purely speculation, but perhaps the fact that the
> process changes state potentially mid dump is why the dump ends up
> being
> truncated?
> 
> I'd love to dive into this and try and figure it out. Absent a test
> case, at least the above gives me an idea of what to try out. I'll see
> if it makes it easier for me to create a case that does result in a
> truncated core dump.
> 
Jens,

When I have first encountered the issue, the very first thing that I
did try was to create a simple test program that would synthetize the
problem.

After few time consumming failed attempts, I just gave up the idea and
simply settle to my prod program that showcase systematically the
problem every time that I kill the process with a SEGV signal.

In a nutshell, all the program does is to issue read operations with
io_uring on a TCP socket on which there is a constant data stream.

Now that I have a better understanding of what is going on, I think
that one way that could reproduce the problem consistently could be
along those lines:

1. Create a pipe
2. fork a child
3. Initiate a read operation on the pipe with io_uring from the child
4. Let the parent kill its child with a core dump generating signal.
5. Write something in the pipe from the parent so that the io_uring
read operation completes while the core dump is generated.

I guess that I'll end up doing that if I cannot fix the issue with my
current setup but here is what I have attempted so far:

1. Call io_uring_files_cancel from do_coredump
2. Same as #1 but also make sure that TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL is cleared on
returning from io_uring_files_cancel

Those attempts didn't work but lurking in the io_uring dev mailing list
is starting to pay off. I thought that I did reach the bottom of the
rabbit hole in my journey of understanding io_uring but the recent
patch set sent by Hao Xu

https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/90fce498-968e-6812-7b6a-fdf8520ea8d9@kernel.dk/T/#t

made me realize that I still haven't assimilated all the small io_uring
nuances...

Here is my feedback. From my casual io_uring code reader point of view,
it is not 100% obvious what the difference is between
io_uring_files_cancel and io_uring_task_cancel

It seems like io_uring_files_cancel is cancelling polls only if they
have the REQ_F_INFLIGHT flag set.

I have no idea what an inflight request means and why someone would
want to call io_uring_files_cancel over io_uring_task_cancel.

I guess that if I was to meditate on the question for few hours, I
would at some point get some illumination strike me but I believe that
it could be a good idea to document in the code those concepts for
helping casual readers...

Bottomline, I now understand that io_uring_files_cancel does not cancel
all the requests. Therefore, without fully understanding what I am
doing, I am going to replace my call to io_uring_files_cancel from
do_coredump with io_uring_task_cancel and see if this finally fix the
issue for good.

What I am trying to do is to cancel pending io_uring requests to make
sure that TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL isn't set while core dump is generated.

Maybe another solution would simply be to modify __dump_emit to make it
resilient to TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL as Eric W. Biederman originally
suggested.

or maybe do both...

Not sure which approach is best. If someone has an opinion, I would be
curious to hear it.

Greetings,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists