On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 05:20 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 09/18/2014 04:51 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> If an iptables drop rule is added for an nfs server, the client can end up in
>>>>> a softlockup. Because of the way that xs_sendpages() is structured, the -EPERM
>>>>> is ignored since the prior bits of the packet may have been successfully queued
>>>>> and thus xs_sendpages() returns a non-zero value. Then, xs_udp_send_request()
>>>>> thinks that because some bits were queued it should return -EAGAIN. We then try
>>>>> the request and again and a softlockup occurs. The test sequence is simply:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) open a file on the nfs server '/nfs/foo' (mounted using udp)
>>>>> 2) iptables -A OUTPUT -d <nfs server ip> -j DROP
>>>>> 3) write to /nfs/foo
>>>>> 4) close /nfs/foo
>>>>> 5) iptables -D OUTPUT -d <nfs server ip> -j DROP
>>>>>
>>>>> The softlockup occurs in step 4 above.
>>>> For UDP, the expected and documented behaviour in the case above is as follows:
>>>> - if the mount is soft, then return EIO on the first major timeout.
>>> yeah - so this case is a softlockup in my testing :(
>>>
>>>> - if the mount is hard, then retry indefinitely on timeout.
>>>>
>>>> Won't these 2 patches end up propagating an EPERM to the application?
>>>> That would be a definite violation of both hard and soft semantics.
>>> ok, yeah it does propogate the -EPERM up - I wasn't aware of the correct
>>> semantics - thanks.
>>>
>>> I can rework the patches such that they return -EIO instead for a soft mount,
>>> and verify that we keep retrying for a hard one.
>>>
>> Doesn't the soft timeout currently trigger after the major timeout? If
>> not, do we understand why it isn't doing so?
>
> No, the soft timeout does not currently trigger after the major timeout. Instead,
> the kernel spins indefinitely, and triggers a softlockup.
>
> The reason is that xs_sendpages() returns a positive value in this case
> and xs_udp_send_request() turns it in an -EAGAIN for the write operation.
> Subsequently, we call call_transmit_status() and then call_status() which
> sees the EAGAIN, which just starts all over again with a 'call_transmit()'.
> So we are stuck spinning indefinitely in kernel space.
>
> Simply moving the -EPERM up in this patch, results in the behavior you
> described above - EIO after a major timeout on a soft mount, and indefinte
> retries on a hard mount - but without the cpu consumption. IE applying
> this on top of this patch:
>
> --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
> @@ -2019,6 +2019,7 @@ call_status(struct rpc_task *task)
> case -EHOSTDOWN:
> case -EHOSTUNREACH:
> case -ENETUNREACH:
> + case -EPERM:
> if (RPC_IS_SOFTCONN(task)) {
> rpc_exit(task, status);
> break;
> @@ -2048,7 +2049,6 @@ call_status(struct rpc_task *task)
> case -EAGAIN:
> task->tk_action = call_transmit;
> break;
> - case -EPERM:
> case -EIO:
> /* shutdown or soft timeout */
> rpc_exit(task, status);
>
> We could also 'translate' the -EPERM into an '-ENETUNREACH' or such,
> in the return from xs_udp_send_request(), if you think that would make
> more sense?
>
> Hopefully, I've explained things better.
>
>
Yep. Can you please resend the patch with the above fix? I think we
can live with the EPERM in the RPC_IS_SOFTCONN case, given that it is
in practice only ever passed back to the 'mount' syscall.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
