[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 6/6] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks (part 2)

[Jan Kara]

On Thu 20-05-21 16:07:56, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:30 PM Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Thu 20-05-21 14:25:36, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > Now that we handle self-recursion on the inode glock in gfs2_fault and
> > > gfs2_page_mkwrite, we need to take care of more complex deadlock
> > > scenarios like the following (example by Jan Kara):
> > >
> > > Two independent processes P1, P2. Two files F1, F2, and two mappings M1,
> > > M2 where M1 is a mapping of F1, M2 is a mapping of F2. Now P1 does DIO
> > > to F1 with M2 as a buffer, P2 does DIO to F2 with M1 as a buffer. They
> > > can race like:
> > >
> > > P1                                      P2
> > > read()                                  read()
> > >   gfs2_file_read_iter()                   gfs2_file_read_iter()
> > >     gfs2_file_direct_read()                 gfs2_file_direct_read()
> > >       locks glock of F1                       locks glock of F2
> > >       iomap_dio_rw()                          iomap_dio_rw()
> > >         bio_iov_iter_get_pages()                bio_iov_iter_get_pages()
> > >           <fault in M2>                           <fault in M1>
> > >             gfs2_fault()                            gfs2_fault()
> > >               tries to grab glock of F2               tries to grab glock of F1
> > >
> > > Those kinds of scenarios are much harder to reproduce than
> > > self-recursion.
> > >
> > > We deal with such situations by using the LM_FLAG_OUTER flag to mark
> > > "outer" glock taking.  Then, when taking an "inner" glock, we use the
> > > LM_FLAG_TRY flag so that locking attempts that don't immediately succeed
> > > will be aborted.  In case of a failed locking attempt, we "unroll" to
> > > where the "outer" glock was taken, drop the "outer" glock, and fault in
> > > the first offending user page.  This will re-trigger the "inner" locking
> > > attempt but without the LM_FLAG_TRY flag.  Once that has happened, we
> > > re-acquire the "outer" glock and retry the original operation.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba at redhat.com>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/file.c b/fs/gfs2/file.c
> > > index 7d88abb4629b..8b26893f8dc6 100644
> > > --- a/fs/gfs2/file.c
> > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/file.c
> > > @@ -431,21 +431,30 @@ static vm_fault_t gfs2_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > >       vm_fault_t ret = VM_FAULT_LOCKED;
> > >       struct gfs2_holder gh;
> > >       unsigned int length;
> > > +     u16 flags = 0;
> > >       loff_t size;
> > >       int err;
> > >
> > >       sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb);
> > >
> > > -     gfs2_holder_init(ip->i_gl, LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE, 0, &gh);
> > > +     if (current_holds_glock())
> > > +             flags |= LM_FLAG_TRY;
> > > +
> > > +     gfs2_holder_init(ip->i_gl, LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE, flags, &gh);
> > >       if (likely(!outer_gh)) {
> > >               err = gfs2_glock_nq(&gh);
> > >               if (err) {
> > >                       ret = block_page_mkwrite_return(err);
> > > +                     if (err == GLR_TRYFAILED) {
> > > +                             set_current_needs_retry(true);
> > > +                             ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > > +                     }
> >
> > I've checked to make sure but do_user_addr_fault() indeed calls do_sigbus()
> > which raises the SIGBUS signal. So if the application does not ignore
> > SIGBUS, your retry will be visible to the application and can cause all
> > sorts of interesting results...
> 
> I would have noticed that, but no SIGBUS signals were actually
> delivered. So we probably end up in kernelmode_fixup_or_oops() when in
> kernel mode, which just does nothing in that case.

Hum, but how would we get there? I don't think fatal_signal_pending() would
return true yet...

> > So you probably need to add a new VM_FAULT_
> > return code that will behave like VM_FAULT_SIGBUS except it will not raise
> > the signal.
> 
> A new VM_FAULT_* flag might make the code easier to read, but I don't
> know if we can have one.

Well, this is kernel-internal API and there's still plenty of space in
vm_fault_reason.
								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack at suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR