On 09/19/2014 05:16 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 09/19/2014 03:41 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> So after some more testing on this new patch, the test sequence I described
> works fine - but if I set the firewall rule first and then do an open, it
> appears that the open() wouldn't time out even on a soft mount (whereas
> with the previous patch it incorrectly returned -EPERM almost immediately).
> It appears that the rpc request is getting queued up onto one of the wait
> queues (xprt_backlog or xprt_sending) in that case, but I'm not sure why.
> I'll have to look more into it next week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jason
>
>
Hi Trond,
Ok, so they do timeout now with this patch (for a soft mount) - I simply wasn't
waiting long enough (took around 30 minutes in some cases). So I think this
patch is ok. If it makes sense I can clean it up based on the comments, and
re-submit?
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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
