lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] fault-inject: avoid unwanted data race to task->fail_nth
2017-08-02 0:54 GMT+09:00 Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>:
> 2017-08-01 22:45 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>:
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:14:52AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>>>The fault-inject-make-fail-nth-read-write-interface-symmetric.patch in
>>>>-mm tree allows users to set task->fail_nth for non current task by procfs.
>>>>On the other hand, the current task's fail_nth is decreased to zero in
>>>>fault-injection path without any specific locks.
>>>>
>>>>So we need to prevent the task->fail_nth from being unexpected value by
>>>>data races (for example, setting task->fail_nth to zero while decreasing
>>>>the current->fail_nth). In this fix, we use READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()
>>>>to prevent the compiler from creating unsolicited accesses.
>>>>
>>>>Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
>>>>Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
>>>>---
>>>> fs/proc/base.c | 5 +++--
>>>> lib/fault-inject.c | 7 +++++--
>>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
>>>>index ecc8a25..719c2e9 100644
>>>>--- a/fs/proc/base.c
>>>>+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
>>>>@@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ static ssize_t proc_fail_nth_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>>>> task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
>>>> if (!task)
>>>> return -ESRCH;
>>>>- task->fail_nth = n;
>>>>+ WRITE_ONCE(task->fail_nth, n);
>>>> put_task_struct(task);
>>>>
>>>> return count;
>>>>@@ -1386,7 +1386,8 @@ static ssize_t proc_fail_nth_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>>>> task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
>>>> if (!task)
>>>> return -ESRCH;
>>>>- len = snprintf(numbuf, sizeof(numbuf), "%u\n", task->fail_nth);
>>>>+ len = snprintf(numbuf, sizeof(numbuf), "%u\n",
>>>>+ READ_ONCE(task->fail_nth));
>>>> len = simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, numbuf, len);
>>>> put_task_struct(task);
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/lib/fault-inject.c b/lib/fault-inject.c
>>>>index 09ac73c1..7d315fd 100644
>>>>--- a/lib/fault-inject.c
>>>>+++ b/lib/fault-inject.c
>>>>@@ -107,9 +107,12 @@ static inline bool fail_stacktrace(struct fault_attr *attr)
>>>>
>>>> bool should_fail(struct fault_attr *attr, ssize_t size)
>>>> {
>>>>- if (in_task() && current->fail_nth) {
>>>>- if (--current->fail_nth == 0)
>>>>+ if (in_task()) {
>>>>+ unsigned int fail_nth = READ_ONCE(current->fail_nth);
>>>>+
>>>>+ if (fail_nth && !WRITE_ONCE(current->fail_nth, fail_nth - 1))
>>>> goto fail;
>>>>+
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>2.7.4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> hi
>>>
>>> I'm a btrfs developer. I found that fail_make_request didn't produce the
>>> expected IO ERROR when running xfstests on linux 4.13-rc1.
>>>
>>> That testcase enable fail_make_request by the following commands:
>>> # echo 100 > /sys/kernel/debug/fail_make_request/probability
>>> # echo 2 > /sys/kernel/debug/fail_make_request/times
>>> # echo 0 > /sys/kernel/debug/fail_make_request/verbose
>>> # echo 1 > /sys/block/sda/sda1/make-it-fail
>>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1 bs=128K count=1 oflag=direct
>>>
>>> As I understand it, after applying this patch, I have to write
>>> /proc/<dd pid>/file-nth firstly so that dd process can catch the IO ERROR.
>>> However, the dd process is so fast that I can't write file-nth.
>>>
>>> So, could you tell me how to produce IO ERROR under these circumstances?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> fail-nth is orthogonal to the existing mechanisms, so if you have a
>> setup that fails all sites with certain probability, that should
>> continue to work.
>
> Lu's setting for fail_make_request is fine before introducing systematic
> fault injection and they want to inject fail_make_request only.
>
> So I think we need a global parameter to turn on/off the systematic fault
> injection. (e.g. /sys/kernel/debug/systematic-fault-inject/enable)

Oops. That is simply a bug in my patch. Correct should_fail() is below.

bool should_fail(struct fault_attr *attr, ssize_t size)
{
if (in_task()) {
unsigned int fail_nth = READ_ONCE(current->fail_nth);

if (fail_nth) {
if (!WRITE_ONCE(current->fail_nth, fail_nth - 1))
goto fail;

return false;
}
}
...


>> If you are writing a new facility and want to use fail-nth, then the
>> test process itself needs to cooperate and write fail-nth accordingly.
>> See the original patch for an example of how to do it:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller/DbB4rjYd82s/3MHDwtcqCAAJ

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-01 18:11    [W:0.036 / U:66.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site