On Wed, 01 Dec 2021, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 13:36 -0500, Scott Mayhew wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 08:03 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 09:51 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 08:57 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scott seems well positioned to identify a reproducer.
> > > > > > > > Maybe
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can give him some likely candidates for possible bugs to
> > > > > > > > explore
> > > > > > > > first.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has this patch been tried?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NeilBrown
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/sched.c b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
> > > > > > > index c045f63d11fa..308f5961cb78 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/sched.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
> > > > > > > @@ -814,6 +814,7 @@ rpc_reset_task_statistics(struct
> > > > > > > rpc_task
> > > > > > > *task)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > task->tk_timeouts = 0;
> > > > > > > task->tk_flags &=
> > > > > > > ~(RPC_CALL_MAJORSEEN|RPC_TASK_SENT);
> > > > > > > + clear_bit(RPC_TASK_SIGNALLED, &task->tk_runstate);
> > > > > > > rpc_init_task_st
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We shouldn't automatically "unsignal" a task once it has been
> > > > > > told
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > die. The correct thing to do here should rather be to change
> > > > > > rpc_restart_call() to exit early if the task was signalled.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe. It depends on exactly what the signal meant
> > > > > (rpc_killall_tasks()
> > > > > is a bit different from getting a SIGKILL), and exactly what
> > > > > the
> > > > > task
> > > > > is
> > > > > trying to achieve.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before Commit ae67bd3821bb ("SUNRPC: Fix up task signalling")
> > > > > that is exactly what we did.
> > > > > If we want to change the behaviour of a task responding to
> > > > > rpc_killall_tasks(), we should clearly justify it in a patch
> > > > > doing
> > > > > exactly that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The intention behind rpc_killall_tasks() never changed, which is
> > > > why
> > > > it
> > >
> > > ("it" being the error ERESTARTSYS)
> > >
> > > > is listed in nfs_error_is_fatal(). I'm not aware of any case
> > > > where we
> > > > deliberately override in order to restart the RPC call on an
> > > > ERESTARTSYS error.
> > > >
> > Update: I'm not able to reproduce this with an upstream kernel. I
> > bisected it down to commit 2ba5acfb3495 "SUNRPC: fix sign error
> > causing
> > rpcsec_gss drops" as the commit that "fixed" the issue (but really
> > just
> > makes the issue less likely to occur, I think).
> >
> > I also tested commit 10b9d99a3dbb "SUNRPC: Augment server-side rpcgss
> > tracepoints" (the commit in the Fixes: tag of 2ba5acfb3495) as well
> > as
> > commit 0e885e846d96 "nfsd: add fattr support for user extended
> > attributes"
> > (the parent of commit 10b9d99a3dbb) and verified that commit
> > 10b9d99a3dbb is where the issue started occurring.
> >
> > I think what is happening is that the NFS server gets a request that
> > it
> > thinks is outside of the GSS sequence window and drops the request,
> > closes the connection and calls nfsd4_conn_lost(), which calls
> > nfsd4_probe_callback() which sets NFSD4_CLIENT_CB_UPDATE in
> > clp->cl_flags. Then the client reestablishes the connection on that
> > port, sends another request which receives
> > NFS4ERR_CONN_NOT_BOUND_TO_SESSION. The client runs the state manager
> > which calls nfs4_bind_conn_to_session(), which calls
> > nfs4_begin_drain_session(), which sets NFS4_SLOT_TBL_DRAINING in
> > tbl->slot_tbl_state. Meanwhile a conflicting request comes in that
> > causes the server to recall the delegation. Since
> > NFS4_SLOT_TBL_DRAINING is set, the client responds to the CB_SEQUENCE
> > with NFS4ERR_DELAY. At the same time, the BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION
> > requests
> > from the client are causing the server to call
> > nfsd4_process_cb_update(), since NFSD4_CLIENT_CB_UPDATE flag is set.
> > nfsd4_process_cb_update() calls rpc_shutdown_client() which signals
> > the
> > CB_RECALL task, which the server is trying re-send due to the
> > NFS4ERR_DELAY, and we get into the soft-lockup.
> >
>
> I'm a little lost with the above explantion. How can the server send a
> callback on a connection that isn't bound? If it isn't bound, then it
> can't be used as a back channel.
The callback is on port 787 and the client sent a BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION
on port 787 right before that:
$ tshark -2 -r nfstest_delegation_20211123_154510_001.cap -Y '(nfs||nfs.cb||tcp.flags.fin==1) && (frame.number >= 447 && frame.number <= 491)'
447 2.146535 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 877 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 448) OPEN DH: 0x7c6b0f9b/nfstest_delegation_20211123_154510_f_001
448 2.162160 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS 2049 877 V4 Reply (Call In 447) OPEN StateID: 0xcb0c
455 2.180240 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 850 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 461) READ StateID: 0xa0f6 Offset: 0 Len: 4096
456 2.180301 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 846 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 466) READ StateID: 0xa0f6 Offset: 8192 Len: 4096
457 2.180357 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 775 2049 V4 Call READ StateID: 0xa0f6 Offset: 4096 Len: 4096
458 2.180382 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 879 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 470) READ StateID: 0xa0f6 Offset: 12288 Len: 4096
461 2.195961 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS 2049 850 V4 Reply (Call In 455) READ
463 2.195989 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 TCP 2049 775 2049 → 775 [FIN, ACK] Seq=557 Ack=689 Win=32256 Len=0 TSval=3414832656 TSecr=3469334230
466 2.196039 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS 2049 846 V4 Reply (Call In 456) READ
470 2.196088 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS 2049 879 V4 Reply (Call In 458) READ
472 2.196171 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 TCP 775 2049 775 → 2049 [FIN, ACK] Seq=689 Ack=558 Win=31104 Len=0 TSval=3469334246 TSecr=3414832656
479 2.227386 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 775 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 482) READ StateID: 0xa0f6 Offset: 4096 Len: 4096
482 2.242931 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS 2049 775 V4 Reply (Call In 479) SEQUENCE Status: NFS4ERR_CONN_NOT_BOUND_TO_SESSION
484 2.243537 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 787 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 486) BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION
486 2.259358 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS 2049 787 V4 Reply (Call In 484) BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION
488 2.259755 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS 802 2049 V4 Call (Reply In 492) BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION
489 2.260037 10.16.225.28 → 10.16.225.113 NFS CB 2049 787 V1 CB_COMPOUND Call (Reply In 491) <EMPTY> CB_SEQUENCE;CB_RECALL
491 2.260139 10.16.225.113 → 10.16.225.28 NFS CB 787 2049 V1 CB_COMPOUND Reply (Call In 489) <EMPTY> CB_SEQUENCE
Come to think of it though, I'm not sure I understand why the CB_RECALL
is happening because I don't see the conflicting open until later in the
capture.
>
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
