From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Cc: cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/9] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks (part 1)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 20:00:08 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiB9gvUsebmiOaRXzYVUxJDUt1SozGtRyxR_MDR=Nv7YQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210531170123.243771-5-agruenba@redhat.com>
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 7:01 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Fix that by recognizing the self-recursion case.
Hmm. I get the feeling that the self-recursion case should never have
been allowed to happen in the first place.
IOW, is there some reason why you can't make the user accesses always
be doen with page faults disabled (ie using the "atomic" user space
access model), and then if you get a partial read (or write) to user
space, at that point you drop the locks in read/write, do the "try to
make readable/writable" and try again.
IOW, none of this "detect recursion" thing. Just "no recursion in the
first place".
That way you'd not have these odd rules at fault time at all, because
a fault while holding a lock would never get to the filesystem at all,
it would be aborted early. And you'd not have any odd "inner/outer"
locks, or lock compatibility rules or anything like that. You'd
literally have just "oh, I didn't get everything at RW time while I
held locks, so let's drop the locks, try to access user space, and
retry".
Wouldn't that be a lot simpler and more robust?
Because what if the mmap is something a bit more complex, like
overlayfs or usefaultfd, and completing the fault isn't about gfs2
handling it as a "fault", but about some *other* entity calling back
to gfs2 and doing a read/write instead? Now all your "inner/outer"
lock logic ends up being entirely pointless, as far as I can tell, and
you end up deadlocking on the lock you are holding over the user space
access _anyway_.
So I literally think that your approach is
(a) too complicated
(b) doesn't actually fix the issue in the more general case
But maybe I'm missing something.
Linus
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [RFC 4/9] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks (part 1)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 20:00:08 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiB9gvUsebmiOaRXzYVUxJDUt1SozGtRyxR_MDR=Nv7YQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210531170123.243771-5-agruenba@redhat.com>
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 7:01 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Fix that by recognizing the self-recursion case.
Hmm. I get the feeling that the self-recursion case should never have
been allowed to happen in the first place.
IOW, is there some reason why you can't make the user accesses always
be doen with page faults disabled (ie using the "atomic" user space
access model), and then if you get a partial read (or write) to user
space, at that point you drop the locks in read/write, do the "try to
make readable/writable" and try again.
IOW, none of this "detect recursion" thing. Just "no recursion in the
first place".
That way you'd not have these odd rules at fault time at all, because
a fault while holding a lock would never get to the filesystem at all,
it would be aborted early. And you'd not have any odd "inner/outer"
locks, or lock compatibility rules or anything like that. You'd
literally have just "oh, I didn't get everything at RW time while I
held locks, so let's drop the locks, try to access user space, and
retry".
Wouldn't that be a lot simpler and more robust?
Because what if the mmap is something a bit more complex, like
overlayfs or usefaultfd, and completing the fault isn't about gfs2
handling it as a "fault", but about some *other* entity calling back
to gfs2 and doing a read/write instead? Now all your "inner/outer"
lock logic ends up being entirely pointless, as far as I can tell, and
you end up deadlocking on the lock you are holding over the user space
access _anyway_.
So I literally think that your approach is
(a) too complicated
(b) doesn't actually fix the issue in the more general case
But maybe I'm missing something.
Linus
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-01 6:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-31 17:01 [RFC 0/9] gfs2: handle page faults during read and write Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 1/9] gfs2: Clean up the error handling in gfs2_page_mkwrite Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 2/9] gfs2: Add wrapper for iomap_file_buffered_write Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 3/9] gfs2: Add gfs2_holder_is_compatible helper Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 4/9] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks (part 1) Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-06-01 6:00 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2021-06-01 6:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-02 11:16 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-06-02 11:16 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-06-11 16:25 ` Al Viro
2021-06-11 16:25 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:05 ` Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:05 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:35 ` Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:35 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-06-13 8:44 ` Steven Whitehouse
2021-06-13 8:44 ` Steven Whitehouse
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 5/9] iov_iter: Add iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:12 ` Al Viro
2021-05-31 17:12 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:12 ` Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:12 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-12 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2021-06-12 21:47 ` Al Viro
2021-06-12 21:47 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-06-12 23:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-12 23:17 ` [Cluster-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2021-06-12 23:38 ` Al Viro
2021-06-12 23:38 ` [Cluster-devel] " Al Viro
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 6/9] gfs2: Add wrappers for accessing journal_info Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 7/9] gfs2: Encode glock holding and retry flags in journal_info Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 8/9] gfs2: Add LM_FLAG_OUTER glock holder flag Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [RFC 9/9] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks (part 2) Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 17:01 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-06-01 5:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-01 5:47 ` [Cluster-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2021-05-31 17:57 ` [Cluster-devel] [RFC 0/9] gfs2: handle page faults during read and write Linus Torvalds
2021-05-31 20:35 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2021-05-31 20:35 ` [Cluster-devel] " Andreas Gruenbacher
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='CAHk-=wiB9gvUsebmiOaRXzYVUxJDUt1SozGtRyxR_MDR=Nv7YQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=agruenba@redhat.com \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.