On Monday, October 18th, 2021 at 6:25 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 10:47 AM Rune Kleveland
>
> rune.kleveland@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > After applying the below patch, the 5 most problematic servers have run
> >
> > without any issues for 23 hours. That never happened before the patch on
> >
> > 5.14, so the patch seems to have fixed the issue for me.
>
> Confirm. I couldn't reproduce the problem on 5.14 either.
>
I'm also unable to reproduce the crash as for now. Thx for the patch.
Jordan
> > On Monday there will be more load on the servers, which caused them to
> >
> > crash faster without the patch. I will let you know if it happens again.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rune
> >
> > On 16/10/2021 00:10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > > In commit fda31c50292a ("signal: avoid double atomic counter
> > >
> > > increments for user accounting") Linus made a clever optimization to
> > >
> > > how rlimits and the struct user_struct. Unfortunately that
> > >
> > > optimization does not work in the obvious way when moved to nested
> > >
> > > rlimits. The problem is that the last decrement of the per user
> > >
> > > namespace per user sigpending counter might also be the last decrement
> > >
> > > of the sigpending counter in the parent user namespace as well. Which
> > >
> > > means that simply freeing the leaf ucount in __free_sigqueue is not
> > >
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > Maintain the optimization and handle the tricky cases by introducing
> > >
> > > inc_rlimit_get_ucounts and dec_rlimit_put_ucounts.
> > >
> > > By moving the entire optimization into functions that perform all of
> > >
> > > the work it becomes possible to ensure that every level is handled
> > >
> > > properly.
> > >
> > > I wish we had a single user across all of the threads whose rlimit
> > >
> > > could be charged so we did not need this complexity.
