netdev - Re: NFSroot hangs with bad unlock balance in Linux next

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]

Date:	Mon, 9 May 2016 08:12:19 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: NFSroot hangs with bad unlock balance in Linux next

* Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> [160509 07:16]:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> >> Very strange.  We grab that rwsem at the entry into nfs_call_unlink()
> >> and then either release it there and return or call nfs_do_call_unlink().
> >> Which arranges for eventual call of nfs_async_unlink_release() (via
> >> ->rpc_release); nfs_async_unlink_release() releases the rwsem.  Nobody else
> >> releases it (on the read side, that is).
> >>
> >> The only kinda-sorta possibility I see here is that the inode we are
> >> unlocking in that nfs_async_unlink_release() is not the one we'd locked
> >> in nfs_call_unlink() that has lead to it.  That really shouldn't happen,
> >> though...  Just to verify whether that's what we are hitting, could you
> >> try to reproduce that thing with the patch below on top of -next and see
> >> if it triggers any of those WARN_ON?

Thanks no warnings with that patch though.

> > D'oh...  Lockdep warnings are easy to trigger (and, AFAICS, bogus).
> > up_read/down_read in fs/nfs/unlink.c should be replaced with
> > up_read_non_owner/down_read_non_owner, lest the lockdep gets confused.
> > Hangs are different - I've no idea what's triggering those.  I've seen
> > something similar on that -next, but not on work.lookups.
> >
> > The joy of bisecting -next...  <a couple of hours later>
> > 9317bb69824ec8d078b0b786b6971aedb0af3d4f is the first bad commit
> > commit 9317bb69824ec8d078b0b786b6971aedb0af3d4f
> > Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Date:   Mon Apr 25 10:39:32 2016 -0700
> >
> >     net: SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE optimizations
> >
> > Reverting changes to sk_set_bit/sk_clear_bit gets rid of the hangs.  Plain
> > revert gives a conflict, since there had been additional change in
> > "net: SOCKWQ_ASYNC_WAITDATA optimizations"; removing both fixed the hangs.
> >
> > Note that hangs appear without any fs/nfs/unlink.c modifications being
> > there.  When the hang happens it affects NFS traffic; ssh session still
> > works fine until it steps on a filesystem operation on NFS (i.e. you
> > can use builtins, access procfs, etc.)
> 
> Yeah, the issue was reported last week (
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg375777.html ),
> and I could not convince myself to add a new sock flag,  like
> SOCK_FASYNC_STICKY.
> 
> (Just in case NFS would ever call sock_fasync() with an empty
> fasync_list, and SOCK_FASYNC would be cleared again.

Yeah applying the test patch from the url above makes things work
for me again.

Regards,

Tony