Re: splice: infinite busy loop lockup bug

[Qian Cai]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:10:05AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:53 AM Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:34:08PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > On 2020/08/07 21:27, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 07:35:08PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > >> syzbot is reporting hung task at pipe_release() [1], for for_each_bvec() from
> > > >> iterate_bvec() from iterate_all_kinds() from iov_iter_alignment() from
> > > >> ext4_unaligned_io() from ext4_dio_write_iter() from ext4_file_write_iter() from
> > > >> call_write_iter() from do_iter_readv_writev() from do_iter_write() from
> > > >> vfs_iter_write() from iter_file_splice_write() falls into infinite busy loop
> > > >> with pipe->mutex held.
> > > >>
> > > >> The reason of falling into infinite busy loop is that iter_file_splice_write()
> > > >> for some reason generates "struct bio_vec" entry with .bv_len=0 and .bv_offset=0
> > > >> while for_each_bvec() cannot handle .bv_len == 0.
> > > >
> > > > broken in 1bdc76aea115 "iov_iter: use bvec iterator to implement iterate_bvec()",
> > > > unless I'm misreading it...
> >
> > I have been chasing something similar for a while as in,
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/89F418A9-EB20-48CB-9AE0-52C700E6BB74@xxxxxx/
> >
> > In my case, it seems the endless loop happens in iterate_iovec() instead where
> > I put a debug patch here,
> >
> > --- a/lib/iov_iter.c
> > +++ b/lib/iov_iter.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> >                 if (unlikely(!__v.iov_len))             \
> >                         continue;                       \
> >                 __v.iov_base = __p->iov_base;           \
> > +               printk_ratelimited("ITER_IOVEC left = %zu, n = %zu\n", left, n); \
> >                 left = (STEP);                          \
> >                 __v.iov_len -= left;                    \
> >                 skip = __v.iov_len;                     \
> >
> > and end up seeing overflows ("n" supposes to be less than PAGE_SIZE) before the
> > soft-lockups and a dead system,
> >
> > [ 4300.249180][T470195] ITER_IOVEC left = 0, n = 48566423
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Does the following patch make a difference for you?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20200817100055.2495905-1-ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx/

Yes, it does. I could no longer be able to reproduce the soft lockups with the
patch applied.