Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <143f0708-e446-9cfe-eba8-8731d52345db@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 13:14:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        Daniel Harding <dharding@living180.net>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc:     regressions@lists.linux.dev, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
References: <7925e262-e0d4-6791-e43b-d37e9d693414@living180.net>
 <371c01dd-258c-e428-7428-ff390b664752@kernel.dk>
 <2436d42c-85ca-d060-6508-350c769804f1@gmail.com>
 <ad9c31e5-ee75-4df2-c16d-b1461be1901a@living180.net>
 <fb0dbd71-9733-0208-48f2-c5d22ed17510@gmail.com>
 <a204ba93-7261-5c6e-1baf-e5427e26b124@living180.net>
 <bd932b5a-9508-e58f-05f8-001503e4bd2b@gmail.com>
 <12a57dd9-4423-a13d-559b-2b1dd2fb0ef3@living180.net>
 <897dc597-fc0a-34ec-84b8-7e1c4901e0fc@leemhuis.info>
 <c2f956e2-b235-9937-d554-424ae44c68e4@living180.net>
 <41c86189-0d1f-60f0-ca8e-f80b3ccf5130@gmail.com>
 <da56fa5f-0624-413e-74a1-545993940d27@gmail.com>
 <3fc08243-f9e0-9cec-4207-883c55ccff78@living180.net>
 <13028ff4-3565-f09e-818c-19e5f95fa60f@living180.net>
 <469e5a9b-c7e0-6365-c353-d831ff1c5071@leemhuis.info>
 <eaee4ea1-8e5a-dde8-472d-44241d992037@kernel.dk>
 <1ce76b24-9185-6b2e-844e-d6a0ce42bb0f@leemhuis.info>
 <55ddaa3c-57a5-f17e-13a7-7427c5f1bb88@kernel.dk>
 <735012d3-bbda-54df-11fb-8e7b561c598d@leemhuis.info>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <735012d3-bbda-54df-11fb-8e7b561c598d@leemhuis.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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