Am 01.08.2014 17:44, schrieb Ram Pai:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:17:13AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 30.07.2014 22:46, schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>> Am 30.07.2014 15:59, schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>>> If we use the plain list_empty() we might not see the
>>>> hlist_del_init_rcu() and therefore miss one member of the
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> It fixes the following issue:
>>>> $ unshare -m /usr/bin/sleep 10000 &
>>>> $ mkdir -p foo/proc
>>>> $ mount -t proc none foo/proc
>>>> $ mount -t binfmt_misc none foo/proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc
>>>> $ umount -l foo/proc
>>>> $ rmdir foo/proc
>>>> rmdir: failed to remove ‘foo/proc’: Device or resource busy
>>>
>>> Although my fix was wrong, the issue is real, it seems to exist for a very
>>> long
>>> time. Just was able to reproduce it on 2.6.32.
>>> Please note that you need a shared root subtree to trigger the issue.
>>> i.e. mount --shared /
>>> Maybe this is why nobody noticed it so far as only systemd distros
>>> have the root subtree shared by default.
>>>
>>> I hit the issue on openSUSE 13.1 where an application creates a chroot
>>> environment
>>> and then lazy umounts /proc.
>>> It happened on very few machines. An analysis showed that only boxes with
>>> an OpenVPN tunnel
>>> were affected. This did not make any sense until I discovered that the
>>> OpenVPN systemd
>>> service file has set "PrivateTmp=true". This setting creates
>>> a mount namespace for the said service...
>>>
>>> In __propagate_umount() the following piece of code is interesting:
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * umount the child only if the child has no
>>> * other children
>>> */
>>> if (child && list_empty(&child->mnt_mounts)) {
>>> hlist_del_init_rcu(&child->mnt_hash);
>>> hlist_add_before_rcu(&child->mnt_hash, &mnt->mnt_hash);
>>> }
>>>
>>> child->mnt_mounts is non-empty for the "proc" although the "binfmt_misc"
>>> subtree was removed.
>>> I'm not sure whether this is only one more symptom or the main culprit.
>>
>> CC'ing Ram Pai.
>>
>> Ram, you are the author of the said code. Can you please explain why we need
>> that
>> list_empty() check?
>> To my (limited) understanding of VFS, the following change should be fine to
>> fix the issue:
>
> We had made a rule then, that busy vfsmounts cannot be lazily unmounted
> **implicitly**. Propagated unmounts are implicit unmounts, and if such
> implicit vfsmounts have child-mounts than obviously they are busy, and
> hence they cannot be lazy-unmounted implicitly.
>
> the list_empty() is checking for no child-mounts on the vfsmount before
> letting it unmount.
>
> We did not want a bunch of mounts disappear without the users knowledge.
> Hence we made the above rule.
>
> Al Viro, will have more insights into this.
Hmm, with the root subtree shared by default this policy will be problematic and
lead to problems.
As I observe on openSUSE 13.1.
Al, what do you think?
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
