Re: [RFC] sunrpc: Fix race between work-queue and rpc_killall_tasks.

[Ben Greear]

On 07/06/2011 04:45 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 15:49 -0700, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The rpc_killall_tasks logic is not locked against
> > the work-queue thread, but it still directly modifies
> > function pointers and data in the task objects.
> >
> > This patch changes the killall-tasks logic to set a flag
> > that tells the work-queue thread to terminate the task
> > instead of directly calling the terminate logic.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > NOTE:  This needs review, as I am still struggling to understand
> > the rpc code, and it's quite possible this patch either doesn't
> > fully fix the problem or actually causes other issues.  That said,
> > my nfs stress test seems to run a bit more stable with this patch applied.
>
> Yes, but I don't see why you are adding a new flag, nor do I see why we
> want to keep checking for that flag in the rpc_execute() loop.
> rpc_killall_tasks() is not a frequent operation that we want to optimise
> for.
>
> How about the following instead?

Ok, I looked at your patch closer.  I think it can still cause
bad race conditions.

For instance:

Assume that tk_callback is NULL at beginning of while loop in __rpc_execute,
and tk_action is rpc_exit_task.

While do_action(task) is being called, tk_action is set to NULL in rpc_exit_task.

But, right after tk_action is set to NULL in rpc_exit_task, the rpc_killall_tasks
method calls rpc_exit, which sets tk_action back to rpc_exit_task.

I believe this could cause the xprt_release(task) logic to be called in the
work-queue's execution of rpc_exit_task due to tk_action != NULL when
it should not be.

I have no hard evidence this exact scenario is happening in my case, but I
believe the code is still racy with your patch.

For that matter, is it safe to modify the flags in rpc_killall_tasks:

rovr->tk_flags |= RPC_TASK_KILLED;

Is that guaranteed to be atomic with any other modification of flags?

Thanks,
Ben


--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/