Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1418004 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an  error Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> - 2016-06-09 03:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 19:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an  error Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> - 2016-06-10 10:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an  error Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-10 21:10 +0200

#1418004 — Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error

On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > > Hi Ian,
> > > 
> > > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without
> > > it.
> > 
> > I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
> > 
> > I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was planning
> > to
> > do
> > after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
> > 
> > I'll include it in that series.
> > Sorry for the hold up, ;)
> 
> Some bad news I'm afraid.
> 
> I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
> failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
> 
> It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
> 
> Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that
> will
> take a while.

The regression has been fixed now.

Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in the
Linux tree.

I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
testing of linux.next will need the above commit.

Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened, how 
is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?

> 
> > 
> > Ian
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
> > > > 
> > > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> > > > should be soon.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> > > > > *sbi,
> > > > >       set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > > > > 
> > > > >       mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > > > -     wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > -     while (bytes && wr) {
> > > > > +     while (bytes) {
> > > > > +             wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > +             if (wr <= 0)
> > > > > +                     break;
> > > > >               data += wr;
> > > > >               bytes -= wr;
> > > > > -             wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > >       }
> > > > >       mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1418519 — Re: [PATCH] autofs: don't stuck in a loop if vfs_write returns an error

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
>> > > Hi Ian,
>> > >
>> > > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next without
>> > > it.
>> >
>> > I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
>> >
>> > I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was planning
>> > to
>> > do
>> > after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
>> >
>> > I'll include it in that series.
>> > Sorry for the hold up, ;)
>>
>> Some bad news I'm afraid.
>>
>> I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
>> failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
>>
>> It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
>>
>> Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that
>> will
>> take a while.
>
> The regression has been fixed now.
>
> Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in the
> Linux tree.

It's good!

>
> I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
>
> Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened, how
> is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?

In linux-next we catch two sorts of bugs.

1. If bugs is triggered very often, we report it, when it isn't in
Linus' tree. And such bugs are fixed very fast.
2. If bugs is triggered rarely. In this case we may detect this bug
too late, when it's in Linus' tree. In this case we may need to
workaraound it.

Here the problem belongs to the second type. It is triggered only when
one or more tests failed and we try to kill all test processes.
Actually it doesn't affect regular runs of tests, but it's annoying
when we are investigating something.

Ian, I don't think that you need to do anything special. Thank you for
handling this patch!

Thanks,
Andrew

>
>>
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Andrew
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
>> > > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
>> > > > should be soon.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>> > > > > ---
>> > > > >  fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
>> > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> > > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
>> > > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> > > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> > > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
>> > > > > *sbi,
>> > > > >       set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
>> > > > >
>> > > > >       mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>> > > > > -     wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> > > > > -     while (bytes && wr) {
>> > > > > +     while (bytes) {
>> > > > > +             wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> > > > > +             if (wr <= 0)
>> > > > > +                     break;
>> > > > >               data += wr;
>> > > > >               bytes -= wr;
>> > > > > -             wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
>> > > > >       }
>> > > > >       mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1419128

On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 10:27 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:52 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 09:34 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:50 -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > > > > Hi Ian,
> > > > > 
> > > > > When are you going to apply this patch? We can't test linux-next
> > > > > without
> > > > > it.
> > > > 
> > > > I though I sent this with the last series but I can't see that I have.
> > > > 
> > > > I have the rest of that series to send over to Andrew which I was
> > > > planning
> > > > to
> > > > do
> > > > after the current merge window closes (which is about now I guess).
> > > > 
> > > > I'll include it in that series.
> > > > Sorry for the hold up, ;)
> > > 
> > > Some bad news I'm afraid.
> > > 
> > > I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3)
> > > is
> > > failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
> > > 
> > > It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x
> > > kernels.
> > > 
> > > Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and
> > > that
> > > will
> > > take a while.
> > 
> > The regression has been fixed now.
> > 
> > Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in
> > the
> > Linux tree.
> 
> It's good!
> 
> > 
> > I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> > testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
> > 
> > Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened,
> > how
> > is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?
> 
> In linux-next we catch two sorts of bugs.
> 
> 1. If bugs is triggered very often, we report it, when it isn't in
> Linus' tree. And such bugs are fixed very fast.
> 2. If bugs is triggered rarely. In this case we may detect this bug
> too late, when it's in Linus' tree. In this case we may need to
> workaraound it.
> 
> Here the problem belongs to the second type. It is triggered only when
> one or more tests failed and we try to kill all test processes.
> Actually it doesn't affect regular runs of tests, but it's annoying
> when we are investigating something.
> 
> Ian, I don't think that you need to do anything special. Thank you for
> handling this patch!

LOL, it's good that it was my standard (relatively simple) testing that exposed
it.

I'll wait a little longer in case Andrew has anything to add then send the patch
series to him.

> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ian
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 22:12 -0700, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > __vfs_write() returns a negative value in a error case.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ha, right, I'll send this along to Andrew with my next series which
> > > > > > should be soon.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 7 ++++---
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > > > index 0146d91..631f155 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > > > > @@ -66,11 +66,12 @@ static int autofs4_write(struct autofs_sb_info
> > > > > > > *sbi,
> > > > > > >       set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >       mutex_lock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > > > > > -     wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > > > -     while (bytes && wr) {
> > > > > > > +     while (bytes) {
> > > > > > > +             wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > > > +             if (wr <= 0)
> > > > > > > +                     break;
> > > > > > >               data += wr;
> > > > > > >               bytes -= wr;
> > > > > > > -             wr = __vfs_write(file, data, bytes, &file->f_pos);
> > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > >       mutex_unlock(&sbi->pipe_mutex);
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1419667

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:23:26 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:

> > I was getting ready to send these over to Andrew and found that opendir(3) is
> > failing on a number of tests (51 of 230, 9 fails are expected) with 4.6.0.
> > 
> > It's not the patches, yours or mine and it doesn't happen with 4.4.x kernels.
> > 
> > Looks like I'm going to have to bisect to work out what's going on and that
> > will
> > take a while.
> 
> The regression has been fixed now.
> 
> Al Viro sent a patch for it to Linus yesterday, it's commit e6ec03a25f1 in the
> Linux tree.
> 
> I can send my patches to Andrew (after re-testing) but any autofs related
> testing of linux.next will need the above commit.
> 
> Andrew, surely this isn't the first time this type of problem has happened, how 
> is it usually handled, what do I need to do to make this go smoothly?

e6ec03a25f1 is in Linus's tree now so everything should be good.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web