Re: [PATCH RFC] nfsd: avoid recursive locking through fsnotify

[Amir Goldstein]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 9:02 AM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 17:16 -0700, Khazhismel Kumykov wrote:
> > fsnotify_add_inode_mark may allocate with GFP_KERNEL, which may
> > result
> > in recursing back into nfsd, resulting in deadlock. See below stack.
> >
> > nfsd            D    0 1591536      2 0x80004080
> > Call Trace:
> >  __schedule+0x497/0x630
> >  schedule+0x67/0x90
> >  schedule_preempt_disabled+0xe/0x10
> >  __mutex_lock+0x347/0x4b0
> >  fsnotify_destroy_mark+0x22/0xa0
> >  nfsd_file_free+0x79/0xd0 [nfsd]
> >  nfsd_file_put_noref+0x7c/0x90 [nfsd]
> >  nfsd_file_lru_dispose+0x6d/0xa0 [nfsd]
> >  nfsd_file_lru_scan+0x57/0x80 [nfsd]
> >  do_shrink_slab+0x1f2/0x330
> >  shrink_slab+0x244/0x2f0
> >  shrink_node+0xd7/0x490
> >  do_try_to_free_pages+0x12f/0x3b0
> >  try_to_free_pages+0x43f/0x540
> >  __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x6ab/0x11c0
> >  __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x274/0x2c0
> >  alloc_slab_page+0x32/0x2e0
> >  new_slab+0xa6/0x8b0
> >  ___slab_alloc+0x34b/0x520
> >  kmem_cache_alloc+0x1c4/0x250
> >  fsnotify_add_mark_locked+0x18d/0x4c0
> >  fsnotify_add_mark+0x48/0x70
> >  nfsd_file_acquire+0x570/0x6f0 [nfsd]
> >  nfsd_read+0xa7/0x1c0 [nfsd]
> >  nfsd3_proc_read+0xc1/0x110 [nfsd]
> >  nfsd_dispatch+0xf7/0x240 [nfsd]
> >  svc_process_common+0x2f4/0x610 [sunrpc]
> >  svc_process+0xf9/0x110 [sunrpc]
> >  nfsd+0x10e/0x180 [nfsd]
> >  kthread+0x130/0x140
> >  ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > Marking this RFC since I haven't actually had a chance to test this,
> > we
> > we're seeing this deadlock for some customers.
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > index fdf89fcf1a0c..a14760f9b486 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ nfsd_file_mark_find_or_create(struct nfsd_file
> > *nf)
> >         struct fsnotify_mark    *mark;
> >         struct nfsd_file_mark   *nfm = NULL, *new;
> >         struct inode *inode = nf->nf_inode;
> > +       unsigned int pflags;
> >
> >         do {
> >                 mutex_lock(&nfsd_file_fsnotify_group->mark_mutex);
> > @@ -149,7 +150,10 @@ nfsd_file_mark_find_or_create(struct nfsd_file
> > *nf)
> >                 new->nfm_mark.mask = FS_ATTRIB|FS_DELETE_SELF;
> >                 refcount_set(&new->nfm_ref, 1);
> >
> > +               /* fsnotify allocates, avoid recursion back into nfsd
> > */
> > +               pflags = memalloc_nofs_save();
> >                 err = fsnotify_add_inode_mark(&new->nfm_mark, inode,
> > 0);
> > +               memalloc_nofs_restore(pflags);
> >
> >                 /*
> >                  * If the add was successful, then return the object.
>
> Isn't that stack trace showing a slab direct reclaim, and not a
> filesystem writeback situation?
>
> Does memalloc_nofs_save()/restore() really fix this problem? It seems
> to me that it cannot, particularly since knfsd is not a filesystem, and
> so does not ever handle writeback of dirty pages.
>

Maybe NOFS throttles direct reclaims to the point that the problem is
harder to hit?

This report came in at good timing for me.

It demonstrates an issue I did not predict for "volatile"' fanotify marks [1].
As far as I can tell, nfsd filecache is currently the only fsnotify backend that
frees fsnotify marks in memory shrinker. "volatile" fanotify marks would also
be evictable in that way, so they would expose fanotify to this deadlock.

For the short term, maybe nfsd filecache can avoid the problem by checking
mutex_is_locked(&nfsd_file_fsnotify_group->mark_mutex) and abort the
shrinker. I wonder if there is a place for a helper mutex_is_locked_by_me()?

Jan,

A relatively simple fix would be to allocate fsnotify_mark_connector in
fsnotify_add_mark() and free it, if a connector already exists for the object.
I don't think there is a good reason to optimize away this allocation
for the case of a non-first group to set a mark on an object?

Thanks,
Amir.



[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20220307155741.1352405-1-amir73il@xxxxxxxxx/