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;
Subject: Re: unsafe req->rq_xprt using inside bc_svc_process() ?
From:   Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
To:     "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>
References: <79494560-1876-494a-0838-cc646eabf68c@virtuozzo.com>
Message-ID: <3b4bd000-13f6-bd4e-a0ea-3e4da3882135@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:40:04 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <79494560-1876-494a-0838-cc646eabf68c@virtuozzo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I've found that Trond fixed it recently in commit 875f0706acc
"SUNRPC: The TCP back channel mustn't disappear while requests are outstanding"

On 11/29/19 5:10 PM, Vasily Averin wrote:
> OpenVz team got complain on crash in bc_svc_process().
> Crashed node had 15 running containers with active nfsv4.1 mounts,
> single nfsv4.1-svc thread was processed its back-channel requests.
> In our case nfs41_callback_svc() took rpc_rqst *req from serv->sv_cb_list
> started its processing but found that req->rq_xprt points to already freed
> struct rpc_xprt aka part of struct sock_xprt transport.
> 
> Back-channel request was submitted via xprt_complete_bc_request(),
> its processing uses req->rq_xprt reference in many times,
> however I did not found who keeps this reference.
> It seems sock_xprt or even whole its net namespace can be freed before bc_svc_process() will start processing of submitted back-channel request, and req->rq_xprt using is unsafe in bc_svc_process()
> 
> Am I missed something probably?