On 6/3/14, 11:32 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:

On 06/04/2014 11:37 AM, Krutika Dhananjay wrote:
Hi,

Recently there was a crash in locks translator (BZ 1103347, BZ
1097102) with the following backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0  uuid_unpack (in=0x8 <Address 0x8 out of bounds>,
uu=0x7fffea6c6a60) at ../../contrib/uuid/unpack.c:44
#1  0x00007feeba9e19d6 in uuid_unparse_x (uu=<value optimized out>,
out=0x2350fc0 "081bbc7a-7551-44ac-85c7-aad5e2633db9",
    fmt=0x7feebaa08e00
"%08x-%04x-%04x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x") at
../../contrib/uuid/unparse.c:55
#2  0x00007feeba9be837 in uuid_utoa (uuid=0x8 <Address 0x8 out of
bounds>) at common-utils.c:2138
#3  0x00007feeb06e8a58 in pl_inodelk_log_cleanup (this=0x230d910,
ctx=0x7fee700f0c60) at inodelk.c:396
#4  pl_inodelk_client_cleanup (this=0x230d910, ctx=0x7fee700f0c60) at
inodelk.c:428
#5  0x00007feeb06ddf3a in pl_client_disconnect_cbk (this=0x230d910,
client=<value optimized out>) at posix.c:2550
#6  0x00007feeba9fa2dd in gf_client_disconnect (client=0x27724a0) at
client_t.c:368
#7  0x00007feeab77ed48 in server_connection_cleanup (this=0x2316390,
client=0x27724a0, flags=<value optimized out>) at server-helpers.c:354
#8  0x00007feeab77ae2c in server_rpc_notify (rpc=<value optimized
out>, xl=0x2316390, event=<value optimized out>, data=0x2bf51c0) at
server.c:527
#9  0x00007feeba775155 in rpcsvc_handle_disconnect (svc=0x2325980,
trans=0x2bf51c0) at rpcsvc.c:720
#10 0x00007feeba776c30 in rpcsvc_notify (trans=0x2bf51c0,
mydata=<value optimized out>, event=<value optimized out>,
data=0x2bf51c0) at rpcsvc.c:758
#11 0x00007feeba778638 in rpc_transport_notify (this=<value optimized
out>, event=<value optimized out>, data=<value optimized out>) at
rpc-transport.c:512
#12 0x00007feeb115e971 in socket_event_poll_err (fd=<value optimized
out>, idx=<value optimized out>, data=0x2bf51c0, poll_in=<value
optimized out>, poll_out=0,
    poll_err=0) at socket.c:1071
#13 socket_event_handler (fd=<value optimized out>, idx=<value
optimized out>, data=0x2bf51c0, poll_in=<value optimized out>,
poll_out=0, poll_err=0) at socket.c:2240
#14 0x00007feeba9fc6a7 in event_dispatch_epoll_handler
(event_pool=0x22e2d00) at event-epoll.c:384
#15 event_dispatch_epoll (event_pool=0x22e2d00) at event-epoll.c:445
#16 0x0000000000407e93 in main (argc=19, argv=0x7fffea6c7f88) at
glusterfsd.c:2023
(gdb) f 4
#4  pl_inodelk_client_cleanup (this=0x230d910, ctx=0x7fee700f0c60) at
inodelk.c:428
428                pl_inodelk_log_cleanup (l);
(gdb) p l->pl_inode->refkeeper
$1 = (inode_t *) 0x0
(gdb)

pl_inode->refkeeper was found to be NULL even when there were some
blocked inodelks in a certain domain of the inode,
which when dereferenced by the epoll thread in the cleanup codepath
led to a crash.

On inspecting the code (for want of a consistent reproducer), three
things were found:

1. The function where the crash happens (pl_inodelk_log_cleanup()),
makes an attempt to resolve the inode to path as can be seen below.
But the way inode_path() itself
    works is to first construct the path based on the given inode's
ancestry and place it in the buffer provided. And if all else fails,
the gfid of the inode is placed in a certain format ("<gfid:%s>").
    This eliminates the need for statements from line 4 through 7
below, thereby "preventing" dereferencing of pl_inode->refkeeper.
    Now, although this change prevents the crash altogether, it still
does not fix the race that led to pl_inode->refkeeper becoming NULL,
and comes at the cost of
    printing "(null)" in the log message on line 9 every time
pl_inode->refkeeper is found to be NULL, rendering the logged messages
somewhat useless.

<code>
  0         pl_inode = lock->pl_inode;
  1
  2         inode_path (pl_inode->refkeeper, NULL, &path);
  3
  4         if (path)
  5                 file = path;
  6         else
  7                 file = uuid_utoa (pl_inode->refkeeper->gfid);
8
  9         gf_log (THIS->name, GF_LOG_WARNING,
 10                 "releasing lock on %s held by "
 11                 "{client=%p, pid=%"PRId64" lk-owner=%s}",
 12                 file, lock->client, (uint64_t) lock->client_pid,
 13                 lkowner_utoa (&lock->owner));
<\code>
I think this logging code is from the days when gfid handle concept was
not there. So it wasn't returning <gfid:gfid-str> in cases the path is
not present in the dentries. I believe the else block can be deleted
safely now.

Pranith

2. There is at least one codepath found that can lead to this crash:
    Imagine an inode on which an inodelk operation is attempted by a
client and is successfully granted too.
   Now, between the time the lock was granted and
pl_update_refkeeper() was called by this thread, the client could send
a DISCONNECT event,
   causing cleanup codepath to be executed, where the epoll thread
crashes on dereferencing pl_inode->refkeeper which is STILL NULL at
this point.

   Besides, there are still places in locks xlator where the refkeeper
is NOT updated whenever the lists are modified - for instance in the
cleanup codepath from a DISCONNECT.

3. Also, pl_update_refkeeper() seems to be not taking into account
blocked locks on the inode in the __pl_inode_is_empty() check, when it
should, as there could still be cases
    where the granted list could be empty but not the blocked list at
the time of udpating the refkeeper, in which case pl_inode must still
take ref on the inode.
Avati,
      There is one more issue, where pl_inode_forget is cleaning up
blocked/granted locks which is not handling the new 'client_list'. But
if we fix inode ref/unref like Kritika proposed, pl_forget should never
come when there is a granted/blocked lock. So may be we should delete
that as well. Please feel free to comment.


Actually any kind of cleaning up in pl_inode_forget() is a gimmick. refkeeper guarantees that the inode is not forgotten when a lock is held. I don't think Kritika's proposed changes are necessary for it to be true. The NULL pointer encountered in the bug is because of the abuse of refkeeper interface to get hold of the GFID. Even with things left as-is, we should never have any left over locks or blocked locks in pl_forget().

Thanks
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Reply via email to