Message ID | EDBAAA0BBBA2AC4E9C8B6B81DEEE1D6915E3D4D2@dggeml505-mbx.china.huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Headers | show |
Series | [V4] scsi: avoid potential deadlock in iscsi_if_rx func | expand |
friendly ping... On 2019/11/20 21:26, wubo (T) wrote: > In iscsi_if_rx func, after receiving one request through iscsi_if_recv_msg func, > iscsi_if_send_reply will be called to try to reply the request in do-loop. > If the return of iscsi_if_send_reply func return -EAGAIN all the time, one deadlock will occur. > > For example, a client only send msg without calling recvmsg func, then it will result in the watchdog soft lockup. > The details are given as follows, > > Details of the special case which can cause deadlock: > > sock_fd = socket(AF_NETLINK, SOCK_RAW, NETLINK_ISCSI); > retval = bind(sock_fd, (struct sock addr*) & src_addr, sizeof(src_addr); > while (1) { > state_msg = sendmsg(sock_fd, &msg, 0); > //Note: recvmsg(sock_fd, &msg, 0) is not processed here. > } > close(sock_fd); > > watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#7 stuck for 22s! [netlink_test:253305] Sample time: 4000897528 ns(HZ: 250) Sample stat: > curr: user: 675503481560, nice: 321724050, sys: 448689506750, idle: 4654054240530, iowait: 40885550700, irq: 14161174020, softirq: 8104324140, st: 0 > deta: user: 0, nice: 0, sys: 3998210100, idle: 0, iowait: 0, irq: 1547170, softirq: 242870, st: 0 Sample softirq: > TIMER: 992 > SCHED: 8 > Sample irqstat: > irq 2: delta 1003, curr: 3103802, arch_timer > CPU: 7 PID: 253305 Comm: netlink_test Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE > Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 > pstate: 40400005 (nZcv daif +PAN -UAO) > pc : __alloc_skb+0x104/0x1b0 > lr : __alloc_skb+0x9c/0x1b0 > sp : ffff000033603a30 > x29: ffff000033603a30 x28: 00000000000002dd > x27: ffff800b34ced810 x26: ffff800ba7569f00 > x25: 00000000ffffffff x24: 0000000000000000 > x23: ffff800f7c43f600 x22: 0000000000480020 > x21: ffff0000091d9000 x20: ffff800b34eff200 > x19: ffff800ba7569f00 x18: 0000000000000000 > x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 > x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0001000101000100 > x13: 0000000101010000 x12: 0101000001010100 > x11: 0001010101010001 x10: 00000000000002dd > x9 : ffff000033603d58 x8 : ffff800b34eff400 > x7 : ffff800ba7569200 x6 : ffff800b34eff400 > x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 00000000ffffffff > x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000001 > x1 : ffff800b34eff2c0 x0 : 0000000000000300 Call trace: > __alloc_skb+0x104/0x1b0 > iscsi_if_rx+0x144/0x12bc [scsi_transport_iscsi] > netlink_unicast+0x1e0/0x258 > netlink_sendmsg+0x310/0x378 > sock_sendmsg+0x4c/0x70 > sock_write_iter+0x90/0xf0 > __vfs_write+0x11c/0x190 > vfs_write+0xac/0x1c0 > ksys_write+0x6c/0xd8 > __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x30 > el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130 > el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78 > el0_svc+0x8/0xc > > Here, we add one limit of retry times in do-loop to avoid the deadlock. > > V4: > - modify the patch subject, no code change. > > V3: > - replace the error with warning as suggested by Ulrich > > V2: > - add some debug kernel message as suggested by Lee Duncan > > Signed-off-by: Bo Wu <wubo40@huawei.com> > Reviewed-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com> > Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan <LDuncan@suse.com> > --- > drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c > index 417b868d8735..ed8d9709b9b9 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ > > #define ISCSI_TRANSPORT_VERSION "2.0-870" > > +#define ISCSI_SEND_MAX_ALLOWED 10 > + > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > #include <trace/events/iscsi.h> > > @@ -3682,6 +3684,7 @@ iscsi_if_rx(struct sk_buff *skb) > struct nlmsghdr *nlh; > struct iscsi_uevent *ev; > uint32_t group; > + int retries = ISCSI_SEND_MAX_ALLOWED; > > nlh = nlmsg_hdr(skb); > if (nlh->nlmsg_len < sizeof(*nlh) + sizeof(*ev) || > @@ -3712,6 +3715,10 @@ iscsi_if_rx(struct sk_buff *skb) > break; > err = iscsi_if_send_reply(portid, nlh->nlmsg_type, > ev, sizeof(*ev)); > + if (err == -EAGAIN && --retries < 0) { > + printk(KERN_WARNING "Send reply failed, error %d\n", err); > + break; > + } > } while (err < 0 && err != -ECONNREFUSED && err != -ESRCH); > skb_pull(skb, rlen); > } > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > > . >
wubo, > In iscsi_if_rx func, after receiving one request through > iscsi_if_recv_msg func, iscsi_if_send_reply will be called to try to > reply the request in do-loop. If the return of iscsi_if_send_reply > func return -EAGAIN all the time, one deadlock will occur. > > For example, a client only send msg without calling recvmsg func, then > it will result in the watchdog soft lockup. The details are given as > follows, > Signed-off-by: Bo Wu <wubo40@huawei.com> > Reviewed-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com> > Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan <LDuncan@suse.com> I haven't seen a Reviewed-by: from Lee on this patch.
On 12/9/19 3:11 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > wubo, > >> In iscsi_if_rx func, after receiving one request through >> iscsi_if_recv_msg func, iscsi_if_send_reply will be called to try to >> reply the request in do-loop. If the return of iscsi_if_send_reply >> func return -EAGAIN all the time, one deadlock will occur. >> >> For example, a client only send msg without calling recvmsg func, then >> it will result in the watchdog soft lockup. The details are given as >> follows, > >> Signed-off-by: Bo Wu <wubo40@huawei.com> >> Reviewed-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com> >> Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan <LDuncan@suse.com> > > I haven't seen a Reviewed-by: from Lee on this patch. > Martin: My sincere apologies. I told wubo I had already reviewed the patch, so he didn't need another Reviewed-by from me. I see I was wrong. Please consider my: Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan <lduncan@suse.com> in the patch to be re-verified.
Lee, > My sincere apologies. I told wubo I had already reviewed the patch, so > he didn't need another Reviewed-by from me. I see I was wrong. OK. The patch was all mangled so I had to apply the changes by hand. Can't say that I'm a big fan of retries going negative but I guess that's just personal taste. Applied to 5.5/scsi-fixes. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c index 417b868d8735..ed8d9709b9b9 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ #define ISCSI_TRANSPORT_VERSION "2.0-870" +#define ISCSI_SEND_MAX_ALLOWED 10 + #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS #include <trace/events/iscsi.h> @@ -3682,6 +3684,7 @@ iscsi_if_rx(struct sk_buff *skb) struct nlmsghdr *nlh; struct iscsi_uevent *ev; uint32_t group; + int retries = ISCSI_SEND_MAX_ALLOWED; nlh = nlmsg_hdr(skb); if (nlh->nlmsg_len < sizeof(*nlh) + sizeof(*ev) || @@ -3712,6 +3715,10 @@ iscsi_if_rx(struct sk_buff *skb) break; err = iscsi_if_send_reply(portid, nlh->nlmsg_type, ev, sizeof(*ev)); + if (err == -EAGAIN && --retries < 0) { + printk(KERN_WARNING "Send reply failed, error %d\n", err); + break; + } } while (err < 0 && err != -ECONNREFUSED && err != -ESRCH); skb_pull(skb, rlen); }