summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name>2011-03-26 00:52:08 +0100
committerThomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name>2011-03-26 00:52:08 +0100
commit817df620bedae9c1daa0497f64a901d51e5bd2dd (patch)
treef59d1ab04787e8d50eeb2e1449d0967e896662da /open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn
parent10288350709d006710bcdfb747ba9d1a1208d69b (diff)
Some more IRC discussions.
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn')
-rw-r--r--open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn163
1 files changed, 163 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn b/open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9db92250
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/rpc_to_self_with_rendez-vous_leading_to_duplicate_port_destroy.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
+
+[RPC to self with rendez-vous leading to duplicate port
+destroy](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2011-03/msg00045.html)
+
+IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-03-14
+
+ <antrik> youpi: I wonder, why does the root FS call diskfs_S_dir_lookup()
+ at all?...
+ <youpi> errr, because a client asked for it?
+ <youpi> (problem with RPCs is you can't easily know where they come from :)
+ )
+ <youpi> (especially when it's the root fs...)
+ <antrik> ah, it's about a client request... didn't see that
+ <youpi> well, I just said "is called", yes
+ <antrik> I do not really understand though why it tries to reauthenticate
+ against itself...
+ <antrik> I fear my memory of the lookup mechanism grew a bit dim
+ <youpi> see the source
+ <youpi> it's about a translated entry
+ <antrik> (and I never fully understood some aspects anyways...)
+ <youpi> it needs to start the translated entry as another user, possibly
+ <antrik> yes, but a translated entry normally would be served by *another*
+ process?...
+ <youpi> sure, but ext2fs has to prepare it
+ <youpi> thus reauthenticate to prepare the correct set of rights
+ <antrik> prepare what?
+ <youpi> rights
+ <youpi> so the process is not root, doesn't have / opened as root, etc.
+ <antrik> rights for what?
+ <youpi> err, about everything
+ <antrik> IIRC the reauthentication is done by the parent FS on the port to
+ the *translated* node
+ <antrik> and the translated node should be a different process?...
+ <youpi> that's not what I read in the source
+ <youpi> fshelp_fetch_root
+ <youpi> ports[INIT_PORT_CRDIR] = reauth (getcrdir ());
+ <youpi> here, getcrdir() returns ext2fs itself
+ <antrik> well, perhaps the issue is that I have no idea what
+ fshelp_fetch_root() does, nor why it is called here...
+ <youpi> it notably starts the translator that dir_lookup is looking at, if
+ needed
+ <youpi> possibly as a different user, thus reauthentication of CRDIR
+ <antrik> so this is about a port that is passed to the translator being
+ started?
+ <youpi> no
+ <youpi> well, depends on what you mean by "port"
+ <youpi> it's about reauthenticating a port to be passed to the translator
+ being started
+ <youpi> and for that a rendez-vous port is needed for the reauthentication
+ <youpi> and that's the one at stake
+ <antrik> yeah, I meant the port that is reauthenticated
+ <antrik> what is CRDIR?
+ <youpi> current root dir ...
+ <antrik> so the parent translator passes it's own root dir to the child
+ translator; and the issue is that for the root FS the root dir points to
+ the root FS itself...
+ <youpi> yes
+ <antrik> OK, that makes sense
+ <youpi> (but that's only one example, rgrep mach_port_destroy hurd/ show
+ other potential issues)
+ <antrik> well, that's actually what I wanted to mention next... why is the
+ rendez-vous port destroyed, instead of just deallocating the port right
+ and letting reference counting to it's thing?...
+ <antrik> do its thing
+ <youpi> "just to make sure" I guess
+ <antrik> it's pretty obvious that this will cause trouble for any RPC
+ referencing itself...
+ <youpi> well, follow-up with that on the list
+ <youpi> with roland/tb in CC
+ <youpi> only they would know any real reason for destroy
+ <youpi> btw, if you knew how we could make _hurd_select()'s raw __mach_msg
+ call be interruptible by signals, that'll permit to fix sudo
+ <youpi> (damn, I need sleep, my tenses are all wrong)
+ <antrik> BTW, does this cause any actual trouble?...
+ <antrik> I don't know much about interruption... cfhammer might have a
+ better idea, he look into that stuff quite a bit AIUI
+ <antrik> looked
+ <antrik> (hehe, it's not only your tenses... guess there's something in the
+ ether ;-) )
+ <youpi> it makes sudo, mailq, etc. fail sometimes
+ <antrik> I mean the rendez-vous thing
+ <youpi> that's it, yes
+ <youpi> sudo etc. fail at least due to this
+ <antrik> so these are two different problems that both affect sudo?
+ <antrik> (rendez-vous and interruption I mean)
+ <youpi> yes
+ <youpi> with my patch the buildds have much fewer issues, but still some
+ <youpi> (my interrupt-related patch)
+ <youpi> I'm installing a s/destroy/deallocate/ version of ext2fs on the
+ buildds, we'll see how it behaves
+ <youpi> (it fixes my testcase at least)
+ <antrik> interrupt-related patch?
+ <antrik> only thing interrupt-related I remember was the reauthentication
+ race...
+ <youpi> that's what I mean
+ <antrik> well, cfhammer investigated this is quite some depth, explaining
+ quite well why the race is only mitigated but still exists... problem is
+ that we didn't know how to fix it properly
+ <antrik> because nobody seems to understand the cancellation code, except
+ perhaps for Roland and Thomas
+ <antrik> (and I'm not even entirely sure about them :-) )
+ <antrik> I think his findings and our conclusions are documented on the
+ ML...
+ <youpi> by "much fewer issues", I mean that some of the symptoms have
+ disappeared, others haven't
+ <antrik> BTW, couldn't the rendez-vous thing be worked around by simply
+ ignoring the errors from the failing deallocate?...
+ <youpi> no, failing deallocate are actually dangerous
+ <antrik> why?
+ <youpi> since the name might have been reused for something else in the
+ meanwhile
+ <youpi> that's the whole point of the warning I had added in the kernel
+ itself
+ <antrik> I see
+ <youpi> such things really deserve tracking, since they can have any kind
+ of consequence
+ <antrik> does Mach try to reuse names quickly, rather than only after
+ wrapping around?...
+ <youpi> it seems to
+ <antrik> OK, then this is a serious problem indeed
+ <youpi> (note: I rarely divine issues when there aren't actual frequent
+ symptoms :) )
+ <antrik> well, the problem with the warning is that it only shows in the
+ cases that do *not* cause a problem... so it's hard to associate them
+ with any specific issues
+ <youpi> well, most of the time the port is not reused quickly enough
+ <youpi> so in most case it shows up more often than causing problem
+
+IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-03-14
+
+ <youpi> ok, mach_port_deallocate actually can't be used
+ <youpi> since mach_reply_port() returns a receive right, not a send right
+ * youpi guesses he will really have to manage to understand all that port
+ stuff completely
+ <antrik> oh, right
+ <antrik> youpi: hm... now I'm confused though. if one client holds a
+ receive right, the other client (or in this case the same process) should
+ have a send or send-once right -- these should *not* share the same name
+ in my understanding
+ <antrik> destroying the receive right should turn the send right into a
+ dead name
+ <antrik> so unless I'm missing something, the destroy shouldn't be a
+ problem, and there must be something else going wrong
+ <antrik> hm... actually I'm probably wrong
+ <antrik> yeah, definitely wrong. receive rights and "ordinary" send rights
+ share the name. only send-once rights are special
+ <antrik> I wonder whether the problem could be worked around by using a
+ send-once right...
+ <antrik> mach_port_mod_refs(mach_task_self(), name,
+ MACH_PORT_RIGHT_RECEIVE, -1) can be used to deallocate only the receive
+ right
+ <antrik> oh, you already figured that out :-)