Re: [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 5/16/22 1:07 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16.05.22 20:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/16/22 12:34 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 16.05.22 20:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/22 12:17 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>>>> Pavel, I had actually just started a draft email with the same theory
>>>>>>> (although you stated it much more clearly than I could have).  I'm
>>>>>>> working on debugging the LXC side, but I'm pretty sure the issue is
>>>>>>> due to LXC using blocking reads and getting stuck exactly as you
>>>>>>> describe.  If I can confirm this, I'll go ahead and mark this
>>>>>>> regression as invalid and file an issue with LXC. Thanks for your help
>>>>>>> and patience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it does appear that was the problem.  The attach POC patch against
>>>>>> LXC fixes the hang.  The kernel is working as intended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #regzbot invalid:  userspace programming error
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm, not sure if I like this. So yes, this might be a bug in LXC, but
>>>>> afaics it's a bug that was exposed by kernel change in 5.17 (correct me
>>>>> if I'm wrong!). The problem thus still qualifies as a kernel regression
>>>>> that normally needs to be fixed, as can be seen my some of the quotes
>>>>> from Linus in this file:
>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/handling-regressions.html
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's really BS in this particularly case. This could always
>>>> have triggered, it's the way multishot works. Will we count eg timing
>>>> changes as potential regressions, because an application relied on
>>>> something there? That does not make it ABI.
>>>>
>>>> In general I agree with Linus on this, a change in behavior breaking
>>>> something should be investigated and figured out (and reverted, if need
>>>> be). This is not that.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I have to deal with various subsystems and a lot of regressions
>>> reports. I can't know the details of each of issue and there are
>>> developers around that are not that familiar with all the practical
>>> implications of the "no regressions". That's why I was just trying to
>>> ensure that this is something safe to ignore. If you say it is, than I'm
>>> totally happy and now rest my case. :-D
>>
>> It's just a slippery slope that quickly leads to the fact that _any_
>> kernel change is a potential regressions,
> 
> I know, don't worry, that's why I'm trying to be careful. But I also had
> cases already where someone (even a proper subsystem maintainer) said
> "this is not a regression, it's a userspace bug" and it clearly was a
> kernel regression (and Linus wasn't happy when he found out). That why I

I get where you're coming from, and that is indeed what most maintainers
would say :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe