Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:03:41 +0800
From: Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Lucas Karpinski <lkarpins@...hat.com>,
 viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, raven@...maw.net, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/1] fs/namespace: remove RCU sync for MNT_DETACH umount


On 1/7/24 13:50, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> I always thought the rcu delay was to ensure concurrent path walks "see" the
>>
>> umount not to ensure correct operation of the following mntput()(s).
>>
>>
>> Isn't the sequence of operations roughly, resolve path, lock, deatch,
>> release
>>
>> lock, rcu wait, mntput() subordinate mounts, put path.
> The crucial bit is really that synchronize_rcu_expedited() ensures that
> the final mntput() won't happen until path walk leaves RCU mode.
>
> This allows caller's like legitimize_mnt() which are called with only
> the RCU read-lock during lazy path walk to simple check for
> MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT and see that the mnt is about to be killed. If they see
> that this mount is MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT then they know that the mount won't
> be freed until an RCU grace period is up and so they know that they can
> simply put the reference count they took _without having to actually
> call mntput()_.
>
> Because if they did have to call mntput() they might end up shutting the
> filesystem down instead of umount() and that will cause said EBUSY
> errors I mentioned in my earlier mails.

Yes, I get that, the problem with this was always whether lockless path 
walks

would correctly see the mount had become invalid when being checked for

legitimacy.


>
>>
>> So the mount gets detached in the critical section, then we wait followed by
>>
>> the mntput()(s). The catch is that not waiting might increase the likelyhood
>>
>> that concurrent path walks don't see the umount (so that possibly the umount
>>
>> goes away before the walks see the umount) but I'm not certain. What looks
>> to
>>
>> be as much of a problem is mntput() racing with a concurrent mount beacase
>> while
>>
>> the detach is done in the critical section the super block instance list
>> deletion
>>
>> is not and the wait will make the race possibility more likely. What's more
> Concurrent mounters of the same filesystem will wait for each other via
> grab_super(). That has it's own logic based on sb->s_active which goes
> to zero when all mounts are gone.

Yep, missed that, I'm too hasty, thanks for your patience.


>
>> mntput() delegates the mount cleanup (which deletes the list instance) to a
>>
>> workqueue job so this can also occur serially in a following mount command.
> No, that only happens when it's a kthread. Regular umount() call goes
> via task work which finishes before the caller returns to userspace
> (same as closing files work).

Umm, misread that, oops!


Ian

>
>>
>> In fact I might have seen exactly this behavior in a recent xfs-tests run
>> where I
>>
>> was puzzled to see occasional EBUSY return on mounting of mounts that should
>> not
>>
>> have been in use following their umount.
> That's usually very much other bugs. See commit 2ae4db5647d8 ("fs: don't
> misleadingly warn during thaw operations") in vfs.fixes for example.
>
>>
>> So I think there are problems here but I don't think the removal of the wait
>> for
>>
>> lazy umount is the worst of it.
>>
>>
>> The question then becomes, to start with, how do we resolve this unjustified
>> EBUSY
>>
>> return. Perhaps a completion (used between the umount and mount system
>> calls) would
>>
>> work well here?
> Again, this already exists deeper down the stack...
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists