| 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: <A25AA8AF-24D3-419D-BC27-2741CFC3A486@cloud.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:50:04 +0000
From: Edwin Torok <edwin.torok@...ud.com>
To: Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
Cc: Edwin Török <edvin.torok@...rix.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] DLM: increase socket backlog to avoid
hangs with 16 nodes
> On 2 Feb 2023, at 22:25, Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> [CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT reply, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:37 AM Edwin Török <edvin.torok@...rix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On a 16 node virtual cluster with e1000 NICs joining the 12th node prints
>> SYN flood warnings for the DLM port:
>> Dec 21 01:46:41 localhost kernel: [ 2146.516664] TCP: request_sock_TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 21064. Sending cookies. Check SNMP counters.
>>
>> And then joining a DLM lockspace hangs:
>> ```
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.780913] INFO: task xapi-clusterd:17638 blocked for more than 120 seconds. │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.786476] Not tainted 4.4.0+10 #1 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.789043] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794611] xapi-clusterd D ffff88001930bc58 0 17638 1 0x00000000 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794615] ffff88001930bc58 ffff880025593800 ffff880022433800 ffff88001930c000 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794617] ffff88000ef4a660 ffff88000ef4a658 ffff880022433800 ffff88000ef4a000 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794619] ffff88001930bc70 ffffffff8159f6b4 7fffffffffffffff ffff88001930bd10
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794644] [<ffffffff811570fe>] ? printk+0x4d/0x4f │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794647] [<ffffffff810b1741>] ? __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unlock+0x11/0x20 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794649] [<ffffffff815a085d>] wait_for_completion+0x9d/0x110 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794653] [<ffffffff810979e0>] ? wake_up_q+0x80/0x80 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794661] [<ffffffffa03fa4b8>] dlm_new_lockspace+0x908/0xac0 [dlm] │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794665] [<ffffffff810aaa60>] ? prepare_to_wait_event+0x100/0x100 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794670] [<ffffffffa0402e37>] device_write+0x497/0x6b0 [dlm] │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794673] [<ffffffff811834f0>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x7f0/0x13b0 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794677] [<ffffffff811b4438>] __vfs_write+0x28/0xd0 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794679] [<ffffffff811b4b7f>] ? rw_verify_area+0x6f/0xd0 ┤
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794681] [<ffffffff811b4dc1>] vfs_write+0xb1/0x190 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794686] [<ffffffff8105ffc2>] ? __do_page_fault+0x302/0x420 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794688] [<ffffffff811b5986>] SyS_write+0x46/0xa0 │
>> Dec 21 01:49:00 localhost kernel: [ 2285.794690] [<ffffffff815a31ae>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x71
>> ```
>>
>> The previous limit of 5 seems like an arbitrary number, that doesn't match any
>> known DLM cluster size upper bound limit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Edwin Török <edvin.torok@...rix.com>
>> Cc: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>
>> Cc: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
>> Cc: cluster-devel@...hat.com
>> ---
>> Notes from 2023:
>> This patch was initially developed on 21 Dec 2017, and in production use ever since.
>> I expected to drop out of our patchqueue at the next kernel upgrade, however it
>> hasn't, so I probably forgot to send it.
>>
>> I haven't noticed this bug again with the patch applied, and the previous value
>> of '5' seems like an arbitrary limit not matching any supported upper bounds
>> on DLM cluster sizes, so this patch has (unintentionally) had a 5 year test
>> cycle.
>
> Correct, I guess the 128 coming from dlm_controld 128 max node
> boundary [0] and I think it's okay to change it to 128, especially if
> you start a cluster every "mostly" node wants to connect() at the same
> time and the backlog of 5 could be not enough to handle them.
> From my understanding the connect() will return -ECONNREFUSED in the
> case of backlog is full. As I see the code of kernel v4.0 dlm at this
> point will _not_ slow down a reattempt to run connect() again, see
> [1].
Thanks for digging into the code, that explains why 'SYN cookies' is a symptom rather than a bug here.
>
>>
>> Although the join hanging forever like that may still be a bug, if the SYN cookies
>> consistently trigger it lets try to avoid the bug by avoiding the SYN cookies.
>
> right, it should work even with 1 as a backlog... after digging into
> the code. My guess is that [2] ran into the MAX_CONNECT_RETRIES
> condition and we do _not_ reset con->retries to 0 if connect() [3]
> fails. If this happens we are kind of stuck and we would not try to
> connect() again. Means you run into the hung task situation, because
> e.g. ping_members() will not succeed.
>
> The current upstream code does not have any limitations of trying
> retries and will always wait some time to try a connect() again if it
> fails. It should retry to connect so long the cluster manager tells
> dlm kernel that a specific node is still part of a lockspace resource
> and there is a transmission happening to this particular node. However
> I think pumping this value to the maximum amount of possible nodes in
> a cluster is not a bad idea.
Although there are improvements possible in how connect failures are handled, this situation is quite rare outside of
a stress test under lab conditions, and this one-liner is probably the easiest way to improve robustness in this area.
>
> There is still a question of "why seeing SYN flooding" warning, but as
> I said there are a lot of connect() happening at the beginning at
> mostly the same time starting a cluster and some of them retrying
> connect() fast.
Yes, I think the SYN flood warning means just that: too many connects in a very short timeframe
and backlog exceeded, i.e. a symptom rather than a cause.
Best regards,
--Edwin
>
> ...
>
> - Alex
>
> [0] https://pagure.io/dlm/blob/c1e2ee574794e0dea68fd45783991ef7b1835901/f/dlm_controld/dlm_daemon.h#_177
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c?h=v4.0#n1226
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c?h=v4.0#n1168
> [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c?h=v4.0#n1220
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists