Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:52:07 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: uncollected nfsd open owners
Message-ID: <20191028145207.GA4607@fieldses.org>
References: <87mudpfwkj.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <20191025152047.GB16053@pick.fieldses.org>
 <20191026213606.GA11394@fieldses.org>
 <87h83tg35l.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h83tg35l.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:49:26AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26 2019, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:20:47AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:22:36PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> >  I have a coredump from a machine that was running as an NFS server.
> >> >  nfs4_laundromat was trying to expire a client, and in particular was
> >> >  cleaning up the ->cl_openowners.
> >> >  As there were 6.5 million of these, it took rather longer than the
> >> >  softlockup timer thought was acceptable, and hence the core dump.
> >> > 
> >> >  Those open owners that I looked at had empty so_stateids lists, so I
> >> >  would normally expect them to be on the close_lru and to be removed
> >> >  fairly soon.  But they weren't (only 32 openowners on close_lru).
> >> > 
> >> >  The only explanation I can think of for this is that maybe an OPEN
> >> >  request successfully got through nfs4_process_open1(), thus creating an
> >> >  open owner, but failed to get to or through nfs4_process_open2(), and
> >> >  so didn't add a stateid.  I *think* this can leave an openowner that is
> >> >  unused but will never be cleaned up (until the client is expired, which
> >> >  might be too late).
> >> > 
> >> >  Is this possible?  If so, how should we handle those openowners which
> >> >  never had a stateid?
> >> >  In 3.0 (which it the kernel were I saw this) I could probably just put
> >> >  the openowner on the close_lru when it is created.
> >> >  In more recent kernels, it seems to be assumed that openowners are only
> >> >  on close_lru if they have a oo_last_closed_stid.  Would we need a
> >> >  separate "never used lru", or should they just be destroyed as soon as
> >> >  the open fails?
> >> 
> >> Hopefully we can just throw the new openowner away when the open fails.
> >> 
> >> But it looks like the new openowner is visible on global data structures
> >> by then, so we need to be sure somebody else isn't about to use it.
> >
> > But, also, if this has only been seen on 3.0, it may have been fixed
> > already.  It sounds like kind of a familiar problem, but I didn't spot a
> > relevant commit on a quick look through the logs.
> >
> I guess I shouldn't expect you to remember something from 8 years ago.
> This seems a perfect fit for what I see:
> 
> commit d29b20cd589128a599e5045d4effc2d7dbc388f5
> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> Date:   Thu Oct 13 15:12:59 2011 -0400
> 
>     nfsd4: clean up open owners on OPEN failure
>     
>     If process_open1() creates a new open owner, but the open later fails,
>     the current code will leave the open owner around.  It won't be on the
>     close_lru list, and the client isn't expected to send a CLOSE, so it
>     will hang around as long as the client does.
>     
>     Similarly, if process_open1() removes an existing open owner from the
>     close lru, anticipating that an open owner that previously had no
>     associated stateid's now will, but the open subsequently fails, then
>     we'll again be left with the same leak.
>     
>     Fix both problems.
> 
> I wonder if this is safe to backport ... 3.2 is fairly close to 3.0, but
> there have been lots of changes to the code since then ... maybe there
> are more bug fixes.
> I'll work something out.

This is all before the breakup of the big state lock, so you don't have
that to worry about, at least.

Anyway, not even remembering that commit, I'm afraid I'm no more expert
on that era of the history that you at this point....

--b.