From: Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@virtuozzo.com>
To: Liu Kui <kui.liu@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: devel@openvz.org, azaitsev@virtuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH VZ10] fs/fuse kio: track pending kRPC connect via state machine only
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 22:59:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <178829635034.1186226.7726025563757909332.b4-review@b4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260827123712.84476-1-kui.liu@virtuozzo.com>
> Rework the previous fix ("fs/fuse kio: fix kRPC connect issues") to not
> require the new struct pcs_krpc member "connect_req", so the fix can be
> shipped as a livepatch.
>
> Both things connect_req was tracking are already derivable from the
> existing state machine once PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECT is made to mean
> exactly "a connect req is in flight":
>
> - krpc_connect_done() settles a failed connect back to UNCONN instead
> of leaving the state in CONNECT forever;
>
> - pcs_krpc_abort() no longer resets CONNECT to UNCONN: the req is
> still in flight, and only its completion settles the state;
>
> - pcs_krpc_connect() proceeds only from UNCONN or ABORTED, refusing
> new connects (-EPERM) while a req is in flight - at most one connect
> req exists at a time, same as with the connect_req check;
>
> - pcs_krpc_poll() reports EPOLLERR on UNCONN: poll bails out earlier
> unless ctx->gen == krpc->gen, and the current session can only be in
> UNCONN if its connect failed or was aborted, which is what the
> (CONNECT && !connect_req) test used to detect.
>
> gen only advances in pcs_krpc_connect(), which is blocked during
> CONNECT, so within that state the in-flight req always carries the
> current gen and krpc_connect_done()'s existing staleness check is
> sufficient.
>
> Related to:
> https://virtuozzo.atlassian.net/browse/VSTOR-135626
> Fixes: d0d6034c36010 ("fs/fuse kio: fix kRPC connect issues")
> Feature: fuse: kRPC - single RPC for kernel and userspace
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Kui <kui.liu@virtuozzo.com>
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/kio/pcs/pcs_krpc.c b/fs/fuse/kio/pcs/pcs_krpc.c
> index 0930fb4adf125..f9fb6b3699062 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/kio/pcs/pcs_krpc.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/kio/pcs/pcs_krpc.c
> @@ -787,8 +787,12 @@ static int pcs_krpc_abort(struct pcs_krpc *krpc)
> spin_lock(&krpc->lock);
>
> if (krpc->state != PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECTED) {
> - if (krpc->state == PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECT)
> - krpc->state = PCS_KRPC_STATE_UNCONN;
> + /*
> + * A pending connect stays in CONNECT state: its connect req
> + * is still in flight and krpc_connect_done() will settle the
> + * state to UNCONN when it completes. Until then new connects
> + * are refused, so at most one connect req exists at a time.
> + */
> spin_unlock(&krpc->lock);
> return 0;
> }
[Severity: High]
Can this change leave a krpc stuck in the connected state with no
session fd attached to it?
Consider a connect req in flight (state is CONNECT) whose fd is closed
by userspace after its connect timeout expires - the scenario the
original fix was written for:
pcs_krpc_release()
if (ctx->gen == krpc->gen)
pcs_krpc_abort(krpc); /* state is CONNECT: does nothing now */
gen cannot advance while the state stays CONNECT, because
pcs_krpc_connect() refuses new connects with -EPERM in that state. So
when the in-flight req later completes successfully (the peer became
reachable again), krpc_connect_done() passes its staleness check and
commits the dead session:
if (req->gen != krpc->gen || krpc->state != PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECT) {
spin_unlock(&krpc->lock);
goto out;
}
if (!pcs_if_error(&msg->error)) {
krpc->state = PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECTED;
Now the krpc is CONNECTED while its gen still names a session whose fd
is gone. Every following PCS_IOC_KRPC_CONNECT returns -EPERM, there is
no fd left on which userspace could issue PCS_KRPC_IOC_ABORT, and no
kernel path resets the state, so the node stays unconnectable until the
krpc is destroyed.
The connect_req based code handled this case: pcs_krpc_abort() moved
CONNECT to UNCONN, a successful krpc_connect_done() then took the stale
path without transitioning to CONNECTED, and the next connect was
allowed as soon as the old req completed.
Does the abort/release path need to invalidate the pending connect, so
that a late successful completion settles the state to UNCONN instead
of resurrecting the closed session?
> @@ -956,8 +960,13 @@ static __poll_t pcs_krpc_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
>
> spin_lock(&krpc->lock);
>
> + /*
> + * ctx->gen == krpc->gen (checked above) means this is the current
> + * session, so UNCONN here can only mean its connect attempt has
> + * failed (see krpc_connect_done()) or the session was aborted.
> + */
> if (krpc->state == PCS_KRPC_STATE_ABORTED ||
> - (krpc->state == PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECT && !krpc->connect_req)) {
> + krpc->state == PCS_KRPC_STATE_UNCONN) {
> pollflags |= EPOLLERR;
> } else if (krpc->state == PCS_KRPC_STATE_CONNECTED) {
> pollflags |= EPOLLOUT;
[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but after this change pcs_krpc_abort() never sets
UNCONN, and an aborted session is left in ABORTED, which the first
check already handles.
For a session with ctx->gen == krpc->gen, can UNCONN still be reached
through an abort as the comment says, or only through a failed
connect? The commit message carries the same wording ("the current
session can only be in UNCONN if its connect failed or was aborted").
[ ... ]
--
Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@virtuozzo.com>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-01 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-27 12:37 Liu Kui
2026-08-28 17:13 ` Konstantin Khorenko
2026-09-01 20:59 ` Konstantin Khorenko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=178829635034.1186226.7726025563757909332.b4-review@b4 \
--to=khorenko@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=azaitsev@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=kui.liu@virtuozzo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox