On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 11:46 AM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 2023, at 4:28 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/21/23 12:12 PM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jan 21, 2023, at 3:05 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 2023-01-21 at 11:50 -0800, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>> On 1/21/23 10:56 AM, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/20/23 3:43 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 10:38 -0800, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 1/19/23 2:56 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 21:05 -0800, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 1/17/23 11:38 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> There are two different flavors of the nfsd4_copy struct. One is
> >>>>>>>>>> embedded in the compound and is used directly in synchronous
> >>>>>>>>>> copies. The
> >>>>>>>>>> other is dynamically allocated, refcounted and tracked in the client
> >>>>>>>>>> struture. For the embedded one, the cleanup just involves
> >>>>>>>>>> releasing any
> >>>>>>>>>> nfsd_files held on its behalf. For the async one, the cleanup is
> >>>>>>>>>> a bit
> >>>>>>>>>> more involved, and we need to dequeue it from lists, unhash it, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There is at least one potential refcount leak in this code now.
> >>>>>>>>>> If the
> >>>>>>>>>> kthread_create call fails, then both the src and dst nfsd_files
> >>>>>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>>> original nfsd4_copy object are leaked.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The cleanup in this codepath is also sort of weird. In the async
> >>>>>>>>>> copy
> >>>>>>>>>> case, we'll have up to four nfsd_file references (src and dst for
> >>>>>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>>>> flavors of copy structure). They are both put at the end of
> >>>>>>>>>> nfsd4_do_async_copy, even though the ones held on behalf of the
> >>>>>>>>>> embedded
> >>>>>>>>>> one outlive that structure.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Change it so that we always clean up the nfsd_file refs held by the
> >>>>>>>>>> embedded copy structure before nfsd4_copy returns. Rework
> >>>>>>>>>> cleanup_async_copy to handle both inter and intra copies. Eliminate
> >>>>>>>>>> nfsd4_cleanup_intra_ssc since it now becomes a no-op.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> >>>>>>>>>> index 37a9cc8ae7ae..62b9d6c1b18b 100644
> >>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1512,7 +1512,6 @@ nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc(struct
> >>>>>>>>>> nfsd4_ssc_umount_item *nsui, struct file *filp,
> >>>>>>>>>> long timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(nfsd4_ssc_umount_timeout);
> >>>>>>>>>> nfs42_ssc_close(filp);
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd_file_put(dst);
> >>>>>>>>> I think we still need this, in addition to release_copy_files called
> >>>>>>>>> from cleanup_async_copy. For async inter-copy, there are 2 reference
> >>>>>>>>> count added to the destination file, one from nfsd4_setup_inter_ssc
> >>>>>>>>> and the other one from dup_copy_fields. The above nfsd_file_put is
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> the count added by dup_copy_fields.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> With this patch, the references held by the original copy structure
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> put by the call to release_copy_files at the end of nfsd4_copy. That
> >>>>>>>> means that the kthread task is only responsible for putting the
> >>>>>>>> references held by the (kmalloc'ed) async_copy structure. So, I think
> >>>>>>>> this gets the nfsd_file refcounting right.
> >>>>>>> Yes, I see. One refcount is decremented by release_copy_files at end
> >>>>>>> of nfsd4_copy and another is decremented by release_copy_files in
> >>>>>>> cleanup_async_copy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> fput(filp);
> >>>>>>>>>> spin_lock(&nn->nfsd_ssc_lock);
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1562,13 +1561,6 @@ nfsd4_setup_intra_ssc(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> >>>>>>>>>> ©->nf_dst);
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>> -static void
> >>>>>>>>>> -nfsd4_cleanup_intra_ssc(struct nfsd_file *src, struct nfsd_file
> >>>>>>>>>> *dst)
> >>>>>>>>>> -{
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd_file_put(src);
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd_file_put(dst);
> >>>>>>>>>> -}
> >>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>> static void nfsd4_cb_offload_release(struct nfsd4_callback *cb)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> struct nfsd4_cb_offload *cbo =
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1683,12 +1675,18 @@ static void dup_copy_fields(struct
> >>>>>>>>>> nfsd4_copy *src, struct nfsd4_copy *dst)
> >>>>>>>>>> dst->ss_nsui = src->ss_nsui;
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>> +static void release_copy_files(struct nfsd4_copy *copy)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (copy->nf_src)
> >>>>>>>>>> + nfsd_file_put(copy->nf_src);
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (copy->nf_dst)
> >>>>>>>>>> + nfsd_file_put(copy->nf_dst);
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> static void cleanup_async_copy(struct nfsd4_copy *copy)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> nfs4_free_copy_state(copy);
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd_file_put(copy->nf_dst);
> >>>>>>>>>> - if (!nfsd4_ssc_is_inter(copy))
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd_file_put(copy->nf_src);
> >>>>>>>>>> + release_copy_files(copy);
> >>>>>>>>>> spin_lock(©->cp_clp->async_lock);
> >>>>>>>>>> list_del(©->copies);
> >>>>>>>>>> spin_unlock(©->cp_clp->async_lock);
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1748,7 +1746,6 @@ static int nfsd4_do_async_copy(void *data)
> >>>>>>>>>> } else {
> >>>>>>>>>> nfserr = nfsd4_do_copy(copy, copy->nf_src->nf_file,
> >>>>>>>>>> copy->nf_dst->nf_file, false);
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd4_cleanup_intra_ssc(copy->nf_src, copy->nf_dst);
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>> do_callback:
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1811,9 +1808,9 @@ nfsd4_copy(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct
> >>>>>>>>>> nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >>>>>>>>>> } else {
> >>>>>>>>>> status = nfsd4_do_copy(copy, copy->nf_src->nf_file,
> >>>>>>>>>> copy->nf_dst->nf_file, true);
> >>>>>>>>>> - nfsd4_cleanup_intra_ssc(copy->nf_src, copy->nf_dst);
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>> out:
> >>>>>>>>>> + release_copy_files(copy);
> >>>>>>>>>> return status;
> >>>>>>>>>> out_err:
> >>>>>>>>> This is unrelated to the reference count issue.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here if this is an inter-copy then we need to decrement the reference
> >>>>>>>>> count of the nfsd4_ssc_umount_item so that the vfsmount can be
> >>>>>>>>> unmounted
> >>>>>>>>> later.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Oh, I think I see what you mean. Maybe something like the (untested)
> >>>>>>>> patch below on top of the original patch would fix that?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> >>>>>>>> index c9057462b973..7475c593553c 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1511,8 +1511,10 @@ nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc(struct
> >>>>>>>> nfsd4_ssc_umount_item *nsui, struct file *filp,
> >>>>>>>> struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(dst->nf_net, nfsd_net_id);
> >>>>>>>> long timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(nfsd4_ssc_umount_timeout);
> >>>>>>>> - nfs42_ssc_close(filp);
> >>>>>>>> - fput(filp);
> >>>>>>>> + if (filp) {
> >>>>>>>> + nfs42_ssc_close(filp);
> >>>>>>>> + fput(filp);
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> spin_lock(&nn->nfsd_ssc_lo
> >>>>>>>> list_del(&nsui->nsui_list);
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1813,8 +1815,13 @@ nfsd4_copy(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct
> >>>>>>>> nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >>>>>>>> release_copy_files(copy);
> >>>>>>>> return status;
> >>>>>>>> out_err:
> >>>>>>>> - if (async_copy)
> >>>>>>>> + if (async_copy) {
> >>>>>>>> cleanup_async_copy(async_copy);
> >>>>>>>> + if (nfsd4_ssc_is_inter(async_copy))
> >>>>>>> We don't need to call nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc since the thread
> >>>>>>> nfsd4_do_async_copy has not started yet so the file is not opened.
> >>>>>>> We just need to do refcount_dec(©->ss_nsui->nsui_refcnt), unless
> >>>>>>> you want to change nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc to detect this error
> >>>>>>> condition and only decrement the reference count.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh yeah, and this would break anyway since the nsui_list head is not
> >>>>>> being initialized. Dai, would you mind spinning up a patch for this
> >>>>>> since you're more familiar with the cleanup here?
> >>>>> Will do. My patch will only fix the unmount issue. Your patch does
> >>>>> the clean up potential nfsd_file refcount leaks in COPY codepath.
> >>>> Or do you want me to merge your patch and mine into one?
> >>>>
> >>> It probably is best to merge them, since backporters will probably want
> >>> both patches anyway.
> >> Unless these two changes are somehow interdependent, I'd like to keep
> >> them separate. They address two separate issues, yes?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >>
> >> And -- narrow fixes need to go to nfsd-fixes, but clean-ups can wait
> >> for nfsd-next. I'd rather not mix the two types of change.
> >
> > Ok. Can we do this:
> >
> > 1. Jeff's patch goes to nfsd-fixes since it has the fix for missing
> > reference count.
>
> To make sure I haven't lost track of anything:
>
> The patch you refer to here is this one:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20230117193831.75201-3-jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Correct?
>
> (I was waiting for Jeff and Olga to come to consensus, and I think
> they have, so I can apply it to nfsd-fixes now).
Sorry folks but I got a bit lost in the thread. I thought Dai pointed
out that we can't remove the put from the nfsd4_cleanup_inter_ssc()
because that's the put for the copied structure and not the original
file references which is what Jeff's patch is trying to address.
> > 2. My fix for the cleanup of allocated memory goes to nfsd-fixes.
>
> And this one hasn't been posted yet, right? Or did I miss it?
>
>
> > 3. I will do the optimization Jeff proposed about list_head and
> > nfsd4_compound in a separate patch that goes into nfsd-next.
>
> That should be fine.
>
>
> > -Dai
> >
> >>> Just make yourself the patch author and keep my S-o-b line.
> >>>
> >>>> I think we need a bit more cleanup in addition to your patch. When
> >>>> kmalloc(sizeof(*async_copy->cp_src), ..) or nfs4_init_copy_state
> >>>> fails, the async_copy is not initialized yet so calling cleanup_async_copy
> >>>> can be a problem.
> >>>>
> >>> Yeah.
> >>>
> >>> It may even be best to ensure that the list_head and such are fully
> >>> initialized for both allocated and embedded struct nfsd4_copy's. You
> >>> might shave off a few cpu cycles by not doing that, but it makes things
> >>> more fragile.
> >>>
> >>> Even better, we really ought to split a lot of the fields in nfsd4_copy
> >>> into a different structure (maybe nfsd4_async_copy). Trimming down
> >>> struct nfsd4_copy would cut down the size of nfsd4_compound as well
> >>> since it has a union that contains it. I was planning on doing that
> >>> eventually, but if you want to take that on, then that would be fine
> >>> too.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> --
> >> Chuck Lever
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
