[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05c29431-c941-45d1-8e14-0527accc3993@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:00:58 +0100
From: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
jaka@...ux.ibm.com, wintera@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1] net/smc: avoid data corruption caused by decline
On 08.11.23 10:48, D. Wythe wrote:
> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> We found a data corruption issue during testing of SMC-R on Redis
> applications.
>
> The benchmark has a low probability of reporting a strange error as
> shown below.
>
> "Error: Protocol error, got "\xe2" as reply type byte"
>
> Finally, we found that the retrieved error data was as follows:
>
> 0xE2 0xD4 0xC3 0xD9 0x04 0x00 0x2C 0x20 0xA6 0x56 0x00 0x16 0x3E 0x0C
> 0xCB 0x04 0x02 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x20 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
> 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0xE2
>
> It is quite obvious that this is a SMC DECLINE message, which means that
> the applications received SMC protocol message.
> We found that this was caused by the following situations:
>
> client server
> proposal
> ------------->
> accept
> <-------------
> confirm
> ------------->
> wait confirm
>
> failed llc confirm
> x------
> (after 2s)timeout
> wait rsp
>
> wait decline
>
> (after 1s) timeout
> (after 2s) timeout
> decline
> -------------->
> decline
> <--------------
>
> As a result, a decline message was sent in the implementation, and this
> message was read from TCP by the already-fallback connection.
>
> This patch double the client timeout as 2x of the server value,
> With this simple change, the Decline messages should never cross or
> collide (during Confirm link timeout).
>
> This issue requires an immediate solution, since the protocol updates
> involve a more long-term solution.
>
> Fixes: 0fb0b02bd6fd ("net/smc: adapt SMC client code to use the LLC flow")
> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index abd2667..5b91f55 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ static int smcr_clnt_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock *smc)
> int rc;
>
> /* receive CONFIRM LINK request from server over RoCE fabric */
> - qentry = smc_llc_wait(link->lgr, NULL, SMC_LLC_WAIT_TIME,
> + qentry = smc_llc_wait(link->lgr, NULL, 2 * SMC_LLC_WAIT_TIME,
> SMC_LLC_CONFIRM_LINK);
> if (!qentry) {
> struct smc_clc_msg_decline dclc;
I'm wondering if the double time (if sufficient) of timeout could be for
waiting for CLC_DECLINE on the client's side. i.e.
diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
index 35ddebae8894..9b1feef1013d 100644
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int smcr_clnt_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock
*smc)
struct smc_clc_msg_decline dclc;
rc = smc_clc_wait_msg(smc, &dclc, sizeof(dclc),
- SMC_CLC_DECLINE, CLC_WAIT_TIME_SHORT);
+ SMC_CLC_DECLINE, 2 *
CLC_WAIT_TIME_SHORT);
return rc == -EAGAIN ? SMC_CLC_DECL_TIMEOUT_CL : rc;
}
smc_llc_save_peer_uid(qentry);
Because the purpose is to let the server have the control to deline.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists