netdev - Re: NFS TCP race condition with SOCK_ASYNC

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4ECB9294.20002@citrix.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:16:20 +0000
From:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
CC:	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NFS TCP race condition with SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE

On 22/11/11 12:10, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 12:02 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>> On 22/11/11 11:38, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 18:14 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: 
>>>> Following some debugging, I believe that the attached patch fixes the
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Simply returning EAGAIN is not sufficient, as the task does not get
>>>> requeued, and times out 13 seconds later (as per our mount options). 
>>>> Setting the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE bit causes the requeue to happen.
>>>>
>>>> I realize that this is a gross hack and I should probably not be using
>>>> SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE in that way.  Is there a better way to achieve the
>>>> same solution?
>>>>
>>> What you are doing will cause the request to be put to sleep with no
>>> guarantee that it will ever be woken up. Why would we want to do that if
>>> there is no report of a tcp window/buffer space congestion?
>> But the reason we get to this code is because there was a report of
>> space collision.  What would you suggest instead?  Changing
>> xs_{tcp,udp}_send_request() to retry in this case would defeat the point
>> of having xs_nospace().
> I suggest doing absolutely nothing: do what you originally proposed,
> which is to report the EAGAIN so that the client state machine retries
> the socket write.
>
> My point is that this is a context which is _not_ atomic with the
> original report of tcp window/buffer space congestion. There are no
> locks or anything else that will guarantee that the congestion still
> exists, and the fact that the SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE flag is now clear
> indicates that this is the case.
> The whole purpose of xs_nospace() is to wait until a congestion
> condition clears. If the congestion clears before we get here, then we
> have no reason to do anything special other than retry.
>
> Trond

I am slightly confused as to what you mean now.

When you take out the if(test_bit test and always set ret to EAGAIN and
requeue the request, the next time it wakes up is when it is killed due
to timeout.  This results in substantially worse effects for the
userspace, as the NFS session is killed.

Did you mean something else when you said "always report EAGAIN"?

-- 
Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer
T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html