On 01/13/2014 08:06 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
> On 2014/1/11 9:19, Srinivas Eeda wrote:
>> From: Srinivas Eeda <seeda@srini.(none)>
>>
>> A tiny race between BAST and unlock message causes the NULL dereference.
>>
>> A node sends an unlock request to master and receives a response. Before
>> processing the response it receives a BAST from the master. Since both
>> requests
>> are processed by different threads it creates a race. While the BAST is being
>> processed, lock can get freed by unlock code.
>>
>> This patch makes bast to return immediately if lock is found but unlock is
>> pending. The code should handle this race. We also have to fix master node to
>> skip sending BAST after receiving unlock message.
>>
>> Below is the crash stack
>>
>> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000048
>> IP: [<ffffffffa015e023>] o2dlm_blocking_ast_wrapper+0xd/0x16
>> [<ffffffffa034e3db>] dlm_do_local_bast+0x8e/0x97 [ocfs2_dlm]
>> [<ffffffffa034f366>] dlm_proxy_ast_handler+0x838/0x87e [ocfs2_dlm]
>> [<ffffffffa0308abe>] o2net_process_message+0x395/0x5b8 [ocfs2_nodemanager]
>> [<ffffffffa030aac8>] o2net_rx_until_empty+0x762/0x90d [ocfs2_nodemanager]
>> [<ffffffff81071802>] worker_thread+0x14d/0x1ed
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.e...@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c
>> index b46278f..dbc6cee 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmast.c
>> @@ -385,8 +385,13 @@ int dlm_proxy_ast_handler(struct o2net_msg *msg, u32
>> len, void *data,
>> head = &res->granted;
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(lock, head, list) {
>> - if (lock->ml.cookie == cookie)
>> - goto do_ast;
>> + /* if lock is found but unlock is pending ignore the bast */
>> + if (lock->ml.cookie == cookie) {
>> + if (lock->unlock_pending)
>> + break;
>> + else
>> + goto do_ast;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> mlog(0, "Got %sast for unknown lock! cookie=%u:%llu, name=%.*s, "
>>
> I found you sent a version on Jan 30, 2012.
> https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2012-January/008469.html
> Compared with the old version, this version only saves a little bit CPU,
> am I right?
Yes you are right. I made the change as Goldwyn suggested which is a
good thing to have :)
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
