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?
next prev parent 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).