Linux-Block Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: John Lenton <john.lenton@canonical.com>,
	Kai-Heng Feng <kaihengfeng@me.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	jean-baptiste.lallement@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: Don't change loop device under exclusive opener
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:37:31 -0700
Message-ID: <c8935c19-8003-d9ee-a78d-2b305527da68@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190807094520.GB14658@quack2.suse.cz>

On 8/7/19 2:45 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 05-08-19 09:41:39, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 7/30/19 6:36 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Tue 30-07-19 12:16:46, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> On Tue 30-07-19 10:36:59, John Lenton wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 10:29, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the notice and the references. What's your version of
>>>>>> util-linux? What your test script does is indeed racy. You have there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> echo Running:
>>>>>> for i in {a..z}{a..z}; do
>>>>>>       mount $i.squash /mnt/$i &
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So all mount(8) commands will run in parallel and race to setup loop
>>>>>> devices with LOOP_SET_FD and mount them. However util-linux (at least in
>>>>>> the current version) seems to handle EBUSY from LOOP_SET_FD just fine and
>>>>>> retries with the new loop device. So at this point I don't see why the patch
>>>>>> makes difference... I guess I'll need to reproduce and see what's going on
>>>>>> in detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've observed this in arch with util-linux 2.34, and ubuntu 19.10
>>>>> (eoan ermine) with util-linux 2.33.
>>>>>
>>>>> just to be clear, the initial reports didn't involve a zany loop of
>>>>> mounts, but were triggered by effectively the same thing as systemd
>>>>> booted a system with a lot of snaps. The reroducer tries to makes
>>>>> things simpler to reproduce :-). FWIW,  systemd versions were 244 and
>>>>> 242 for those systems, respectively.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for info! So I think I see what's going on. The two mounts race
>>>> like:
>>>>
>>>> MOUNT1					MOUNT2
>>>> num = ioctl(LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE)
>>>> 					num = ioctl(LOOP_CTL_GET_FREE)
>>>> ioctl("/dev/loop$num", LOOP_SET_FD, ..)
>>>>    - returns OK
>>>> 					ioctl("/dev/loop$num", LOOP_SET_FD, ..)
>>>> 					  - acquires exclusine loop$num
>>>> 					    reference
>>>> mount("/dev/loop$num", ...)
>>>>    - sees exclusive reference from MOUNT2 and fails
>>>> 					  - sees loop device is already
>>>> 					    bound and fails
>>>>
>>>> It is a bug in the scheme I've chosen that racing LOOP_SET_FD can block
>>>> perfectly valid mount. I'll think how to fix this...
>>>
>>> So how about attached patch? It fixes the regression for me.
>   
> Hi Bart,
> 
>> A new kernel warning is triggered by blktests block/001 that did not happen
>> without this patch. Reverting commit 89e524c04fa9 ("loop: Fix mount(2)
>> failure due to race with LOOP_SET_FD") makes that kernel warning disappear.
>> Is this reproducible on your setup?
> 
> Thanks for report! Hum, no, it seems the warning doesn't trigger in my test
> VM. But reviewing the mentioned commit with fresh head, I can see where I
> did a mistake during my conversion of blkdev_get(). Does attached patch fix
> the warning for you?

I've queued this up, Jan. Thanks for taking a look at it.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  parent reply index

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-16 14:01 Jan Kara
2019-05-16 20:44 ` Jens Axboe
2019-05-27 12:29   ` Jan Kara
2019-05-27 13:34     ` Jens Axboe
2019-07-18  8:15       ` Kai-Heng Feng
2019-07-30  9:29         ` Jan Kara
2019-07-30  9:36           ` John Lenton
2019-07-30 10:16             ` Jan Kara
2019-07-30 13:36               ` Jan Kara
2019-07-30 17:59                 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2019-07-30 19:17                 ` Jens Axboe
2019-07-30 21:11                   ` John Lenton
2019-07-31  8:56                   ` Jan Kara
2019-08-05 16:41                 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-08-05 21:01                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-08-07  9:45                   ` Jan Kara
2019-08-07 18:45                     ` Bart Van Assche
2019-08-08 13:37                     ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-07-30 10:16           ` Tetsuo Handa

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=c8935c19-8003-d9ee-a78d-2b305527da68@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jean-baptiste.lallement@canonical.com \
    --cc=john.lenton@canonical.com \
    --cc=kaihengfeng@me.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    /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

Linux-Block Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/0 linux-block/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-block linux-block/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block \
		linux-block@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-block

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-block


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git