On 10/29/19 1:40 PM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>
> On 10/29/19 12:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/29/19 1:31 PM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>> On 10/29/19 12:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/19 1:23 PM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/19 12:17 PM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/25/19 7:21 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/25/19 8:18 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/25/19 8:07 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/19 7:46 AM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/19 3:31 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/19 1:18 PM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/19 10:09 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/19 3:18 AM, Bijan Mottahedeh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Running an fio test consistenly crashes the kernel with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below. The root cause seems to be the code in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __io_submit_sqe() that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks the result of a request for -EAGAIN in polled mode,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensuring first that the request has completed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_IOPOLL) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (req->result == -EAGAIN)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a little confused, because we should be holding the submission
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to the request still at this point. So how is it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> going away?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must be missing something...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the submission reference is going away...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I *think* the problem has to do with the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>> io_complete_rw_iopoll() which sets REQ_F_IOPOLL_COMPLETED is being
>>>>>>>>>>>> called from interrupt context in my configuration and so there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential race between updating the request there and checking
>>>>>>>>>>>> it in
>>>>>>>>>>>> __io_submit_sqe().
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My first workaround was to simply poll for
>>>>>>>>>>>> REQ_F_IOPOLL_COMPLETED in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> code snippet above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (req->result == --EAGAIN) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> poll for REQ_F_IOPOLL_COMPLETED
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> return -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that got rid of the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> But that will not work at all for a proper poll setup, where you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> trigger any IRQs... It only happens to work for this case because
>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>> still triggering interrupts. But even in that case, it's not a real
>>>>>>>>>>> solution, but I don't think that's the argument here ;-)
>>>>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm just curious though as how it would break the poll case because
>>>>>>>>>> io_complete_rw_iopoll() would still be called though through polling,
>>>>>>>>>> REQ_F_IOPOLL_COMPLETED would be set, and so io_iopoll_complete()
>>>>>>>>>> should be able to reliably check req->result.
>>>>>>>>> It'd break the poll case because the task doing the submission is
>>>>>>>>> generally also the one that finds and reaps completion. Hence if you
>>>>>>>>> block that task just polling on that completion bit, you are
>>>>>>>>> preventing
>>>>>>>>> that very task from going and reaping completions. The condition would
>>>>>>>>> never become true, and you are now looping forever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The same poll test seemed to run ok with nvme interrupts not being
>>>>>>>>>> triggered. Anyway, no argument that it's not needed!
>>>>>>>>> A few reasons why it would make progress:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - You eventually trigger a timeout on the nvme side, as blk-mq
>>>>>>>>> finds the
>>>>>>>>> request hasn't been completed by an IRQ. But that's a 30
>>>>>>>>> second ordeal
>>>>>>>>> before that event occurs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - There was still interrupts enabled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - You have two threads, one doing submission and one doing
>>>>>>>>> completions.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe using SQPOLL? If that's the case, then yes, it'd still
>>>>>>>>> work as
>>>>>>>>> you have separate threads for submission and completion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the "generic" case of just using one thread and IRQs disabled,
>>>>>>>>> it'd
>>>>>>>>> deadlock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see what the race is now, it's specific to IRQ driven polling. We
>>>>>>>>>>> really should just disallow that, to be honest, it doesn't make any
>>>>>>>>>>> sense. But let me think about if we can do a reasonable solution
>>>>>>>>>>> to this
>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't involve adding overhead for a proper setup.
>>>>>>>>>> It's a nonsensical config in a way and so disallowing it would make
>>>>>>>>>> the most sense.
>>>>>>>>> Definitely. The nvme driver should not set .poll() if it doesn't have
>>>>>>>>> non-irq poll queues. Something like this:
>>>>>>>> Actually, we already disable polling if we don't have specific poll
>>>>>>>> queues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (set->nr_maps > HCTX_TYPE_POLL &&
>>>>>>>> set->map[HCTX_TYPE_POLL].nr_queues)
>>>>>>>> blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, q);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you see any timeouts in your tests? I wonder if the use-after-free
>>>>>>>> triggered when the timeout found the request while you had the
>>>>>>>> busy-spin
>>>>>>>> logic we discussed previously.
>>>>>>> Ah, but we still have fops->iopoll() set for that case. So we just won't
>>>>>>> poll for it, it'll get completed by IRQ. So I do think we need to handle
>>>>>>> this case in io_uring. I'll get back to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ran the same test on linux-next-20191029 in polled mode and got the
>>>>>> same free-after-user panic:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - I booted with nvme.poll_queues set and verified that all queues
>>>>>> except default where of type poll
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - I added three assertions to verify the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - nvme_timeout() is not called
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - io_complete_rw_iopoll() is not called from interrupt context
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - io_sq_offload_start() is not called with IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL set
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible that the race is there also in polled mode since a
>>>>>> request submitted by one thread could conceivably be polled for and
>>>>>> completed by a different thread, e.g. in
>>>>>> io_uring_enter()->io_iopoll_check()?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --bijan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I also tested my RFC again with 1 thread and with queue depths of 1 to
>>>>> 1024 in multiples of 8 and didn't see any hangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear, the busy-spin logic discussed before was only a
>>>>> workaround an not in the RFC.
>>>> What is your exact test case?
>>>>
>>> See original cover letter. I can reproduce the failure with numjobs
>>> between 8 and 32.
>> And how many poll queues are you using?
>>
> 30
And how many threads/cores in the box? Trying to get a sense for how
many CPUs share a single poll queue, if any.
--
Jens Axboe
