lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: nbd: Oops because nbd doesn't prevent NBD_CLEAR_SOCK while sock_xmit() is working on a receive
Mike Snitzer wrote:

> In practice this looks like:
>
> nbd1: NBD_DISCONNECT
> nbd1: Send control failed (result -32)
> end_request: I/O error, dev nbd1, sector 0
> end_request: I/O error, dev nbd1, sector 8032264
> md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0
> raid1: Disk failure on nbd1, disabling device.
> Operation continuing on 1 devices
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000028 RIP:
> [<ffffffff88b1e125>] :nbd:sock_xmit+0x9d/0x301

> The fact that sock_xmit() in receive mode is unprotected seems to be
> the WHY a NULL pointer is possible; but I'm still trying to identify
> the HOW.

Do you know who is setting the socket NULL? Is it already NULL when you
get to this point? Is it the nbd-client -d? Is it the original
nbd-client/kernel that does it? Figuring that out would help narrow down
the cause.

> But for me this begs the question: why isn't the nbd_device's socket
> always protected during sock_xmit() for both
> transmits and receives; rather than just transmits (via tx_lock)!?

It would deadlock if we held the lock over both. Generally we don't have
to worry about receives, since they're always done in the nbd-client
process, so we have control over when and how it exits and cleans up.
The odd case, as you've discovered, is when another process (nbd-client
-d) comes along and starts mucking with the queue and socket. Would
"kill -9 <nbd-client-pid>" work for you instead? That is what I use to
break the connection, and it's safe, as it tells the original nbd-client
to exit (which it does cleanly and safely).

--
Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-27 13:39    [W:0.033 / U:1.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site