Re: Kernel panic / list_add corruption when in nfsd4_run_cb_work

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 10:59 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 10:29 -0500, Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:17:28PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On Nov 22, 2021, at 4:15 AM, Olivier Monaco
> > > > <olivier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I think my problem is related to this thread.
> > > > 
> > > > We are running a VMware vCenter platform running 9 groups of
> > > > virtual machines. Each group includes a VM with NFS for file
> > > > sharing and 3 VMs with NFS clients, so we are running 9
> > > > independent file servers.
> > > 
> > > I've opened https://bugzilla.linux-nfs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=371
> > > 
> > > Just a random thought: would enabling KASAN shed some light?
> > 
> > In fact, we've gotten reports from Redhat QE of a KASAN use-after-
> > free
> > warning in the laundromat thread, which I think might be the same
> > bug.
> > We've been getting occasional reports of problems here for a long
> > time,
> > but they've been very hard to reproduce.
> > 
> > After fooling with their reproducer, I think I finally have it.
> > Embarrasingly, it's nothing that complicated.  You can make it much
> > easier to reproduce by adding an msleep call after the vfs_setlease
> > in
> > nfs4_set_delegation.
> > 
> > If it's possible to run a patched kernel in production, you could
> > try
> > the following, and I'd definitely be interested in any results.
> > 
> > Otherwise, you can probably work around the problem by disabling
> > delegations.  Something like
> > 
> >         sudo echo "fs.leases-enable = 0" >/etc/sysctl.d/nfsd-
> > workaround.conf
> > 
> > should do it.
> > 
> > Not sure if this fix is best or if there's something simpler.
> > 
> > --b.
> > 
> > commit 6de51237589e
> > Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Tue Nov 23 22:31:04 2021 -0500
> > 
> >     nfsd: fix use-after-free due to delegation race
> >     
> >     A delegation break could arrive as soon as we've called
> > vfs_setlease.  A
> >     delegation break runs a callback which immediately (in
> >     nfsd4_cb_recall_prepare) adds the delegation to
> > del_recall_lru. 
> > If we
> >     then exit nfs4_set_delegation without hashing the delegation,
> > it
> > will be
> >     freed as soon as the callback is done with it, without ever
> > being
> >     removed from del_recall_lru.
> >     
> >     Symptoms show up later as use-after-free or list corruption
> > warnings,
> >     usually in the laundromat thread.
> >     
> >     Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index bfad94c70b84..8e063f49240b 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -5159,15 +5159,16 @@ nfs4_set_delegation(struct nfs4_client
> > *clp,
> > struct svc_fh *fh,
> >                 locks_free_lock(fl);
> >         if (status)
> >                 goto out_clnt_odstate;
> > +
> >         status = nfsd4_check_conflicting_opens(clp, fp);
> > -       if (status)
> > -               goto out_unlock;
> >  
> >         spin_lock(&state_lock);
> >         spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
> > -       if (fp->fi_had_conflict)
> > +       if (status || fp->fi_had_conflict) {
> > +               list_del_init(&dp->dl_recall_lru);
> > +               dp->dl_time++;
> >                 status = -EAGAIN;
> > -       else
> > +       } else
> >                 status = hash_delegation_locked(dp, fp);
> >         spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
> >         spin_unlock(&state_lock);
> 
> Why won't this leak a reference to the stid? Afaics
> nfsd_break_one_deleg() does take a reference before launching the
> callback daemon, and that reference is released when the delegation
> is
> later processed by the laundromat.
> 
> Hmm... Isn't the real bug here rather that the laundromat is
> corrupting
> both the nn->client_lru and nn->del_recall_lru lists because it is
> using list_add() instead of list_move() when adding these objects to
> the reaplist?
> 

OK. Looks like mark_client_expired_locked() does call list_del() on
clp->cl_lru on success, so I'm wrong about that.

However I don't see where anything is removing dp->dl_recall_lru, so I
still think the laundromat is corrupting the nn->del_recall_lru list.

-- 
Trond Myklebust
CTO, Hammerspace Inc
4984 El Camino Real, Suite 208
Los Altos, CA 94022
​
www.hammer.space





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux