linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT which waits for umount completion
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:37:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170914183723.GA17131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170914013017.GP5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:30:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 06:10:48PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> 
> > Android triggers umount(2) by init process, which is definitely not a kernel
> > thread. But, we've seen some kernel panics which say umount(2) was succeeded,
> > but ext4 triggered a kernel panic due to EIO after then like below. I'm also
> > not sure task_work_run() would be also safe enoughly. May I ask where I can
> > find sys_umount() calls task_work_run()?
> 
> ret_{fast,slow}_syscall ->
> 	slow_work_pending ->
> 		do_work_pending() ->
> 			tracehook_notify_resume() ->
> 				task_work_run()
> 
> It's not sys_umount() (or any other sys_...()) - it's syscall dispatcher after
> having called one of those and before returning to userland.  What is guaranteed
> is that after successful task_work_add() the damn thing will be run in context
> of originating process before it returns from syscall.  So any subsequent
> syscalls from that process are guaranteed to happen after the work has run.
> The same happens if the process exits rather than returns to userland (do_exit() ->
> exit_task_work() -> task_work_run()), but for that you would need it to die in
> umount(2) (e.g. get kill -9 delivered on the way out).
> 
> Please, check if you are seeing task_work_add() failure in there and if you do,
> I would like to see a stack trace.  IOW, slap WARN_ON(1); right after
>                         if (!task_work_add(task, &mnt->mnt_rcu, true))
>                                 return;
> and see what (if anything) gets printed.

AFAICS, for task_work_add() to fail here we need a final mntput() to be run
in context of a thread that already had exit_signals() run *and* subsequent
task_work_run() run to completion (with all pending callbacks executed, along
with all callbacks added by those, etc.)

For that to have happened during umount(2) we would've needed
	* killing signal delivered while going through the syscall
	* final mntput() to have been done *NOT* from sys_umount() (otherwise
the work would've been added before we got to exit_signals())
	* final mntput() to have been done *NOT* from any task_work callbacks
(otherwise it would've been added before we'd observed a combination of empty
list of pending work with PF_EXITING)

I really want to see the stack trace of that failing task_work_add(), if that's
what actually happens there.  What kind of a reproducer do you have for that?

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-14 18:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-13 20:09 [PATCH] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT which waits for umount completion Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-13 23:04 ` Al Viro
2017-09-13 23:31   ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-13 23:44     ` Al Viro
2017-09-14  1:10       ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-14  1:30         ` Al Viro
2017-09-14 18:37           ` Al Viro [this message]
2017-09-14 19:14             ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15  0:19               ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15  2:06                 ` Al Viro
2017-09-15  3:45                   ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15  4:21                     ` Al Viro
2017-09-15 18:44                       ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 22:12                         ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-15 23:29                           ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 23:43                             ` Al Viro
2017-09-19 15:55                               ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-16  7:11                           ` Amir Goldstein
2017-09-20 17:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-20 18:38   ` Al Viro
2017-09-21  0:34     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-21  2:42       ` Al Viro
2017-09-21  5:02         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-21 14:48           ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-21 17:16             ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-21 18:20   ` [PATCH v3] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT to wait for delayed_fput/mntput completion Jaegeuk Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170914183723.GA17131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).