linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH -next v2 4/6] md: refactor idle/frozen_sync

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <04700f85-62a2-1dbd-f330-80f9a13b7d2e@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:28:47 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        yangerkun@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH -next v2 4/6] md: refactor
 idle/frozen_sync_thread() to fix deadlock

Hi,

在 2023/06/14 17:08, Xiao Ni 写道:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 4:29 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2023/06/14 15:57, Xiao Ni 写道:
>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 3:38 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 在 2023/06/14 15:12, Xiao Ni 写道:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:04 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 在 2023/06/14 9:48, Yu Kuai 写道:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the patch, sync_seq is added in md_reap_sync_thread. In
>>>>>>>> idle_sync_thread, if sync_seq isn't equal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mddev->sync_seq, it should mean there is someone that stops the sync
>>>>>>>> thread already, right? Why do
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you say 'new started sync thread' here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone stops the sync thread, and new sync thread is not started,
>>>>>> then this sync_seq won't make a difference, above wait_event() will not
>>>>>> wait because !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery) will pass.
>>>>>> So 'sync_seq' is only used when the old sync thread stops and new sync
>>>>>> thread starts, add 'sync_seq' will bypass this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> If a new sync thread starts, why can sync_seq be different? sync_seq
>>>>> is only added in md_reap_sync_thread. And when a new sync request
>>>>> starts, it can't stop the sync request again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Af first, the sync_seq is 0
>>>>>
>>>>> admin1
>>>>> echo idle > sync_action
>>>>> idle_sync_thread(sync_seq is 1)
>>>>
>>>> Wait, I'm confused here, how can sync_seq to be 1 here? I suppose you
>>>> mean that there is a sync_thread just finished?
>>>
>>> Hi Kuai
>>>
>>> Yes. Because idle_sync_thread needs to wait until md_reap_sync_thread
>>> finishes. And md_reap_sync_thread adds sync_seq. Do I understand your
>>> patch right?
>>
>> Yes, noted that idle_sync_thread() will only wait if MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING
>> is set.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the problem is that idle_sync_thread() read sync_seq after the old
>>>> sync_thread is done, and new sync_thread start before wait_event() is
>>>> called, should we wait for this new sync_thread?
>>>>
>>>> My answer here is that we should, but I'm also ok to not wait this new
>>>> sync_thread, I don't think this behaviour matters. The key point here
>>>> is that once wait_event() is called from idle_sync_thread(), this
>>>> wait_event() should not wait for new sync_thread...
>>>
>>> I think we should wait. If we don't wait for it, there is a problem.
>>> One person echos idle to sync_action and it doesn't work sometimes.
>>> It's a strange thing.
>>>
>>
>> Ok. I'll add new comment to emphasize that idle_sync_thread() won't wait
>> for new sync_thread that is started after wait_event().
> 
> I suggest removing this function. Without this change, it's more
> simple and it can work well without problem. The people that echo idle
> to sync_action needs to wait until the sync action finishes. The code
> semantic is clear and simple.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> echo resync > sync_action (new sync)
>>>>
>>>> If this is behind "echo idle > sync_action", idle_sync_thread should not
>>>> see that MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is set and wait_event() won't wait at all.
>>>
>>> `echo resync > sync_action` can't change the sync_seq. So 'echo idle >
>>> sync_action' still waits until MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is cleared?
>>
>> This is not accurate, if `echo resync > sync_action` triggers a new
>> sync_thread, then sync_seq is updated when this sync_thread is done,
>> during this period, MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is still set, so `echo idle
>>   >sync_action` will wait for sync_thread to be done.
> 
> I can understand your comment, but sorry, I still can't get how
> sync_seq works. Could you give a specific case that explains how it
> works?

Ok, the problem is that echo ilde is supposed to interrupt sync_thread
and stop sync_thread quickly. Now that we don't hold mutex here, we
can't prevent new sync_thread to start. For exapmle:

1) a sync_thread A is runing, MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is set;

2) echo idle, A will be interrupted, mutex is not hold and
idle_sync_thread() is waiting for MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING to be cleared.

3) A is interrupted, it'll clear MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING and try to wakeup
idle_sync_thread(), however, before idle_sync_thread() is woken, A can
be done and a new sync_thread B can be started, and MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING
will be set again.

4) idle_sync_thread() finially wake up, however, MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is
set and it will still waiting. And this time B won't be interrupted.

Thanks,
Kuai