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;
Feedback-ID: i21f147d5:Fastmail
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:41:17 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: strange interaction between fuse + pidns
Message-ID: <YrT6Hdqp36HLK9PJ@netflix>
References: <YrShFXRLtRt6T/j+@risky>
 <YrThSLvG8JSLHG4j@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YrThSLvG8JSLHG4j@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:55:20PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So in this case single process is client as well as server. IOW, one
> thread is fuse server servicing fuse requests and other thread is fuse
> client accessing fuse filesystem?

Yes. Probably an abuse of the API and something people Should Not Do,
but as you say the kernel still shouldn't lock up like this.

> > since the thread has a copy of
> > the fd table with an fd pointing to the same fuse device, the reference
> > count isn't decremented to zero in fuse_dev_release(), and the task hangs
> > forever.
> 
> So why did fuse server thread stop responding to fuse messages. Why
> did it not complete flush.

In this particular case I think it's because the application crashed
for unrelated reasons and tried to exit the pidns, hitting this
problem.

> BTW, unkillable wait happens on ly fc->no_interrupt = 1. And this seems
> to be set only if server probably some previous interrupt request
> returned -ENOSYS.
> 
> fuse_dev_do_write() {
>                 else if (oh.error == -ENOSYS)
>                         fc->no_interrupt = 1;
> }
> 
> So a simple workaround might be for server to implement support for
> interrupting requests.

Yes, but that is the libfuse default IIUC.

> Having said that, this does sounds like a problem and probably should
> be fixed at kernel level.
> 
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> > index 0e537e580dc1..c604dfcaec26 100644
> > --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
> > +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> > @@ -297,7 +297,6 @@ void fuse_request_end(struct fuse_req *req)
> >  		spin_unlock(&fiq->lock);
> >  	}
> >  	WARN_ON(test_bit(FR_PENDING, &req->flags));
> > -	WARN_ON(test_bit(FR_SENT, &req->flags));
> >  	if (test_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags)) {
> >  		spin_lock(&fc->bg_lock);
> >  		clear_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags);
> > @@ -381,30 +380,33 @@ static void request_wait_answer(struct fuse_req *req)
> >  			queue_interrupt(req);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (!test_bit(FR_FORCE, &req->flags)) {
> > -		/* Only fatal signals may interrupt this */
> > -		err = wait_event_killable(req->waitq,
> > -					test_bit(FR_FINISHED, &req->flags));
> > -		if (!err)
> > -			return;
> > +	/* Only fatal signals may interrupt this */
> > +	err = wait_event_killable(req->waitq,
> > +				test_bit(FR_FINISHED, &req->flags));
> 
> Trying to do a fatal signal killable wait sounds reasonable. But I am
> not sure about the history.
> 
> - Why FORCE requests can't do killable wait.
> - Why flush needs to have FORCE flag set.

args->force implies a few other things besides this killable wait in
fuse_simple_request(), most notably:

req = fuse_request_alloc(fm, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);

and

__set_bit(FR_WAITING, &req->flags);

seems like it probably can be invoked from some non-user/atomic
context somehow?

> > +	if (!err)
> > +		return;
> >  
> > -		spin_lock(&fiq->lock);
> > -		/* Request is not yet in userspace, bail out */
> > -		if (test_bit(FR_PENDING, &req->flags)) {
> > -			list_del(&req->list);
> > -			spin_unlock(&fiq->lock);
> > -			__fuse_put_request(req);
> > -			req->out.h.error = -EINTR;
> > -			return;
> > -		}
> > +	spin_lock(&fiq->lock);
> > +	/* Request is not yet in userspace, bail out */
> > +	if (test_bit(FR_PENDING, &req->flags)) {
> > +		list_del(&req->list);
> >  		spin_unlock(&fiq->lock);
> > +		__fuse_put_request(req);
> > +		req->out.h.error = -EINTR;
> > +		return;
> >  	}
> > +	spin_unlock(&fiq->lock);
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * Either request is already in userspace, or it was forced.
> > -	 * Wait it out.
> > +	 * Womp womp. We sent a request to userspace and now we're getting
> > +	 * killed.
> >  	 */
> > -	wait_event(req->waitq, test_bit(FR_FINISHED, &req->flags));
> > +	set_bit(FR_INTERRUPTED, &req->flags);
> > +	/* matches barrier in fuse_dev_do_read() */
> > +	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > +	/* request *must* be FR_SENT here, because we ignored FR_PENDING before */
> > +	WARN_ON(!test_bit(FR_SENT, &req->flags));
> > +	queue_interrupt(req);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void __fuse_request_send(struct fuse_req *req)
> > 
> > avaialble as a full patch here:
> > https://github.com/tych0/linux/commit/81b9ff4c8c1af24f6544945da808dbf69a1293f7
> > 
> > but now things are even weirder. Tasks are stuck at the killable wait, but with
> > a SIGKILL pending for the thread group.
> 
> That's strange. No idea what's going on.

Thanks for taking a look. This is where it falls apart for me. In
principle the patch seems simple, but this sleeping behavior is beyond
my understanding.

Tycho