"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:05:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 01:10:58PM +0500, Михаил Гаврилов wrote: >> > But seems now got another issue: >> > >> > [ 1966.953781] INFO: task tracker-store:8578 blocked for more than 120 seconds. >> > [ 1966.953797] Not tainted 4.13.4-301.fc27.x86_64+debug #1 >> > [ 1966.953800] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" >> > disables this message. >> > [ 1966.953804] tracker-store D12840 8578 1655 0x00000000 >> > [ 1966.953811] Call Trace: >> > [ 1966.953823] __schedule+0x2dc/0xbb0 >> > [ 1966.953830] ? wait_on_page_bit_common+0xfb/0x1a0 >> > [ 1966.953838] schedule+0x3d/0x90 >> > [ 1966.953843] io_schedule+0x16/0x40 >> > [ 1966.953847] wait_on_page_bit_common+0x10a/0x1a0 >> > [ 1966.953857] ? page_cache_tree_insert+0x170/0x170 >> > [ 1966.953865] __filemap_fdatawait_range+0x101/0x1a0 >> > [ 1966.953883] file_write_and_wait_range+0x63/0xc0 >> >> Ok, that's in wait_on_page_writeback(page) >> ...... >> >> > And yet another >> > >> > [41288.797026] INFO: task tracker-store:4535 blocked for more than 120 seconds. >> > [41288.797034] Not tainted 4.13.4-301.fc27.x86_64+debug #1 >> > [41288.797037] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" >> > disables this message. >> > [41288.797041] tracker-store D10616 4535 1655 0x00000000 >> > [41288.797049] Call Trace: >> > [41288.797061] __schedule+0x2dc/0xbb0 >> > [41288.797072] ? bit_wait+0x60/0x60 >> > [41288.797076] schedule+0x3d/0x90 >> > [41288.797082] io_schedule+0x16/0x40 >> > [41288.797086] bit_wait_io+0x11/0x60 >> > [41288.797091] __wait_on_bit+0x31/0x90 >> > [41288.797099] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x94/0xb0 >> > [41288.797106] ? bit_waitqueue+0x40/0x40 >> > [41288.797113] __block_write_begin_int+0x265/0x550 >> > [41288.797132] iomap_write_begin.constprop.14+0x7d/0x130 >> >> And that's in wait_on_buffer(). >> >> In both cases we are waiting on a bit lock for IO completion. In the >> first case it is on page, the second it's on sub-page read IO >> completion during a write. >> >> Triggeringa hung task timeouts like this doesn't usually indicate a >> filesystem problem. > > <-- snip --> > >> None of these things usually filesystem problems, and the trainsmash >> of blocked tasks on filesystem locks is typical for these types of >> "blocked indefinitely with locks held" type of situations. It does >> tend to indicate taht there is quite a bit of load on the >> filesystem, though... > > As Jan Kara noted we've seen this also on customers SLE12-SP2 kernel (4.4 > based). Although we also were never able to root cause, since that bug > is now closed on our end I figured it would be worth mentioning two > theories we discussed, one more recent than the other. > > One theory came from observation of logs and these logs hinting at an > older issue our Docker team had been looking into for a while, that of > libdm mounts being leaked into another container's namespace. Apparently > the clue to when this happens is when something as follows is seen on > the docker logs: > > 2017-06-22T18:59:47.925917+08:00 host-docker-01 dockerd[1957]: time="2017-06-22T18:59:47.925857351+08:00" level=info msg="Container > 6b8f678a27d61939f358614c673224675d64f1527bb2046943e2d493f095c865 failed to exit within 30 seconds of signal 15 - using the force" > > This is a SIGTERM. When one sees the above message it is a good hint that the > container actually did not finish at all, but instead was forced to be > terminated via 'docker kill' or 'docker rm -f'. To be clear docker was not able > to use SIGTERM so then resorts to SIGKILL. > > After this is when we get the next clueful message which interests us to try > to figure out a way to reproduce the originally reported issue: > > 2017-06-22T18:59:48.071374+08:00 host-docker-01 dockerd[1957]: time="2017-06-22T18:59:48.071314219+08:00" level=error msg="devmapper: Error > unmounting device > > Aleksa indicates he's been studying this code for a while, and although he > has fixes for this on Docker it also means he does understands what is > going on here. The above error message indicates Docker in turn *failed* to > still kill the damn container with SIGKILL. This, he indicates, is due to > libdm mounts leaking from one container namespace to another container's > namespace. The error is not docker being unable to umount, its actually > that docker cannot remove the backing device. > > Its after this when the bug triggers. It doesn't explain *why* we hit this > bug on XFS, but it should be a clue. Aleksa is however is absolutely sure > that the bugs found internally *are* caused by mount leakage somehow, and > all we know is that XFS oops happened after this. > > He suggests this could in theory be reproduced by doing the following > while you have a Docker daemon running: > > o unshare -m > o mount --make-rprivate / > > Effectively forcing a mount leak. We had someone trying to reproduce this > internally somehow but I don't think they were in the end able to. > > If this docker issue leads to a kernel issue the severity might be a bit more > serious, it indicates an unprivileged user namespaces can effectively perform a > DoS against the host if it's trying to operate on devicemapper mounts. > > Then *another* theory came recently from Jan Blunck during the ALPSS, he noted > he traced a similar issue back to a systemd misuse, ie, systemd setting the > root namespace to 'shared' by default. Originally the root namespace is set to > 'private', but systemd decided it'd be a good idea to set it to 'shared'. Which > would quite easily explain the mount namespace leaking. > > Aleksa however contends that the mountspace leaking happens because of Docker's > architecture (all of the mounts are created in one mount namespace, and all of > the runc invocations happen in that same mount namespace). Even if you > explicitly set different sharing options (which runc already supports), the > problem still exists. > > But if *not* using docker, it gives us an idea of how you perhaps you could > run into a similar issue. > > Regardless Aleksa points out there's still a more fundamental issue of "I can > leak a mountpoint as an unprivileged user, no matter what the propagation is": > > % unshare -rm > % mount --make-rprivate / > % # I now have the mount alive. > > Luis *Scratches my head* That most definitely is not a leak. It is a creation of a duplicate set of mounts. It is true that unmount in the parent will not remove those duplicate mounts in the other mount namespaces. Unlink of the mountpoint will ensure that nothing is mounted on a file or directory in any mount namespace. Given that they are duplicate of the mount they will not make any umount fail in the original namespace. The superblock and the block device will remain busy. But that is not new as any open file or directory can already do that. Further mount namespaces reference counts are held open by processes directly or file descriptors or other mount namespaces which are held open by processes. So killing the appropriate set of processes should make the mount namespace go away. I have heard tell of cases where mounts make it into mount namespaces where no one was expecting them to exist, and no one wanting to kill the processes using those mount namespaces. But that is mostly sloppiness. That is not a big bad leak that can not be prevented, it is an "oops did I put that there?" kind of situation. If there is something special about device mapper that needs to be take into account I would love to hear about it. The only scenario I can currently imagine that goes from umount failing to excessive I/O happening on the system, is if userspace decides not to send a SIGKILL to some set of processes that then do a bunch of I/O. Eric -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href
