Re: [PATCH] nfsd: fix incorrect high limit in clamp() on over-allocation

Chuck Lever
2024-12-24T13:54:25Z

On 12/24/24 4:16 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 6:49 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 12/23/24 11:06 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 3:48 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/24 7:25 AM, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>>>>>
>>>>> If over allocation occurs in nfsd4_get_drc_mem(), total_avail is set
>>>>> to zero. Consequently,
>>>>>
>>>>> clamp_t(unsigned long, avail, slotsize, total_avail/scale_factor);
>>>>>
>>>>> gives:
>>>>>
>>>>> clamp_t(unsigned long, avail, slotsize, 0);
>>>>>
>>>>> resulting in a clamp() call where the high limit is smaller than the
>>>>> low limit, which is undefined: the result could be either slotsize or
>>>>> zero depending on the order of evaluation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Luckily, the two instructions just below the clamp() recover the
>>>>> undefined behaviour:
>>>>>
>>>>> num = min_t(int, num, avail / slotsize);
>>>>> num = max_t(int, num, 1);
>>>>>
>>>>> If avail = slotsize, the min_t() sets it back to 1. If avail = 0, the
>>>>> max_t() sets it back to 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this undefined behaviour has no visible effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, remove the undefined behaviour in clamp() by only calling it
>>>>> and only doing the calculation of num if memory is still available.
>>>>> Otherwise, if over-allocation occurred, directly set num to 1 as
>>>>> intended by the author.
>>>>>
>>>>> While at it, apply below checkpatch fix:
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: min() should probably be min_t(unsigned long, NFSD_MAX_MEM_PER_SESSION, total_avail)
>>>>> #100: FILE: fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:1954:
>>>>> + avail = min((unsigned long)NFSD_MAX_MEM_PER_SESSION, total_avail);
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 7f49fd5d7acd ("nfsd: handle drc over-allocation gracefully.")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Found by applying below patch from David:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/34d53778977747f19cce2abb287bb3e6@AcuMS.aculab.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing so yield this report:
>>>>>
>>>>> In function ‘nfsd4_get_drc_mem’,
>>>>> inlined from ‘check_forechannel_attrs’ at fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:3791:16,
>>>>> inlined from ‘nfsd4_create_session’ at fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:3864:11:
>>>>> ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:38: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_3707’ declared with attribute error: clamp() low limit (unsigned long)(slotsize) greater than high limit (unsigned long)(total_avail/scale_factor)
>>>>> 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
>>>>> | ^
>>>>> ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:523:4: note: in definition of macro ‘__compiletime_assert’
>>>>> 523 | prefix ## suffix(); \
>>>>> | ^~~~~~
>>>>> ././include/linux/compiler_types.h:542:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘_compiletime_assert’
>>>>> 542 | _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> ./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:37: note: in expansion of macro ‘compiletime_assert’
>>>>> 39 | #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> ./include/linux/minmax.h:114:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG’
>>>>> 114 | BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(statically_true(ulo > uhi), \
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> ./include/linux/minmax.h:121:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘__clamp_once’
>>>>> 121 | __clamp_once(val, lo, hi, __UNIQUE_ID(v_), __UNIQUE_ID(l_), __UNIQUE_ID(h_))
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> ./include/linux/minmax.h:275:36: note: in expansion of macro ‘__careful_clamp’
>>>>> 275 | #define clamp_t(type, val, lo, hi) __careful_clamp((type)(val), (type)(lo), (type)(hi))
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:1972:10: note: in expansion of macro ‘clamp_t’
>>>>> 1972 | avail = clamp_t(unsigned long, avail, slotsize,
>>>>> | ^~~~~~~
>>>>>
>>>>> Because David's patch is targetting Andrew's mm tree, I would suggest
>>>>> that my patch also goes to that tree.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>>>> index 741b9449f727defc794347f1b116c955d715e691..eb91460c434e30f6df70f66d937f8c0f334b8e1b 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>>>> @@ -1944,35 +1944,39 @@ static u32 nfsd4_get_drc_mem(struct nfsd4_channel_attrs *ca, struct nfsd_net *nn
>>>>> {
>>>>> u32 slotsize = slot_bytes(ca);
>>>>> u32 num = ca->maxreqs;
>>>>> - unsigned long avail, total_avail;
>>>>> - unsigned int scale_factor;
>>>>>
>>>>> spin_lock(&nfsd_drc_lock);
>>>>> - if (nfsd_drc_max_mem > nfsd_drc_mem_used)
>>>>> + if (nfsd_drc_max_mem > nfsd_drc_mem_used) {
>>>>> + unsigned long avail, total_avail;
>>>>> + unsigned int scale_factor;
>>>>> +
>>>>> total_avail = nfsd_drc_max_mem - nfsd_drc_mem_used;
>>>>> - else
>>>>> + avail = min_t(unsigned long,
>>>>> + NFSD_MAX_MEM_PER_SESSION, total_avail);
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Never use more than a fraction of the remaining memory,
>>>>> + * unless it's the only way to give this client a slot.
>>>>> + * The chosen fraction is either 1/8 or 1/number of threads,
>>>>> + * whichever is smaller. This ensures there are adequate
>>>>> + * slots to support multiple clients per thread.
>>>>> + * Give the client one slot even if that would require
>>>>> + * over-allocation--it is better than failure.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + scale_factor = max_t(unsigned int,
>>>>> + 8, nn->nfsd_serv->sv_nrthreads);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + avail = clamp_t(unsigned long, avail, slotsize,
>>>>> + total_avail/scale_factor);
>>>>> + num = min_t(int, num, avail / slotsize);
>>>>> + num = max_t(int, num, 1);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> /* We have handed out more space than we chose in
>>>>> * set_max_drc() to allow. That isn't really a
>>>>> * problem as long as that doesn't make us think we
>>>>> * have lots more due to integer overflow.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - total_avail = 0;
>>>>> - avail = min((unsigned long)NFSD_MAX_MEM_PER_SESSION, total_avail);
>>>>> - /*
>>>>> - * Never use more than a fraction of the remaining memory,
>>>>> - * unless it's the only way to give this client a slot.
>>>>> - * The chosen fraction is either 1/8 or 1/number of threads,
>>>>> - * whichever is smaller. This ensures there are adequate
>>>>> - * slots to support multiple clients per thread.
>>>>> - * Give the client one slot even if that would require
>>>>> - * over-allocation--it is better than failure.
>>>>> - */
>>>>> - scale_factor = max_t(unsigned int, 8, nn->nfsd_serv->sv_nrthreads);
>>>>> -
>>>>> - avail = clamp_t(unsigned long, avail, slotsize,
>>>>> - total_avail/scale_factor);
>>>>> - num = min_t(int, num, avail / slotsize);
>>>>> - num = max_t(int, num, 1);
>>>>> + num = 1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> nfsd_drc_mem_used += num * slotsize;
>>>>> spin_unlock(&nfsd_drc_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> base-commit: fac04efc5c793dccbd07e2d59af9f90b7fc0dca4
>>>>> change-id: 20241209-nfs4state_fix-bc6f1c1fc1d1
>>>
>>>> We're replacing this code wholesale in 6.14. See:
>>>>
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git/commit/?h=nfsd-testing&id=8233f78fbd970cbfcb9f78c719ac5a3aac4ea053
>>>
>>> Bad commit reference?
>>
>> Expired commit reference. That commit lives in a testing branch, which
>> has subsequently been rebased. The current reference is:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git/commit/?h=nfsd-testing&id=94af736b97fbd8d02d66b3a0271f9c618f446bf0
>>
>>> And hence this is still failing in next-20241220...
>>
>> I haven't moved these commits to the nfsd-next branch yet.
>>
>> Is there an urgency for this fix? Is this a problem in LTS kernels
>
> Currently there are build failures in linux-next due to this, possibly
> hiding other issues.

Understood. I can start moving these patches to nfsd-next today, and
they will find their way into linux-next automatically.

>> that might need a backport? 94af736 is not intended to be backported.
>
> We'll see if the issue ever shows up in stable.
> I understand it is exposed by stricter checking in the min/max macros.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>

--
Chuck Lever