Commit 38fe73cc authored by Nicholas Bellinger's avatar Nicholas Bellinger Committed by Martin K. Petersen

scsi: target: Fix target_wait_for_sess_cmds breakage with active signals

With the addition of commit 00d909a1 ("scsi: target: Make the session
shutdown code also wait for commands that are being aborted") in v4.19-rc, it
incorrectly assumes no signals will be pending for task_struct executing the
normal session shutdown and I/O quiesce code-path.

For example, iscsi-target and iser-target issue SIGINT to all kthreads as part
of session shutdown.  This has been the behaviour since day one.

As-is when signals are pending with se_cmds active in se_sess->sess_cmd_list,
wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout() returns a negative number and
immediately kills the machine because of the do while (ret <= 0) loop that was
added in commit 00d909a1 to spin while backend I/O is taking any amount of
extended time (say 30 seconds) to complete.

Here's what it looks like in action with debug plus delayed backend I/O
completion:

[ 4951.909951] se_sess: 000000003e7e08fa before target_wait_for_sess_cmds
[ 4951.914600] target_wait_for_sess_cmds: signal_pending: 1
[ 4951.918015] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 0
[ 4951.921639] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 1
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 2
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 3
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 4
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 5
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 6
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 7
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 8
[ 4951.921944] wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout ret: -512 signal_pending: 1 loop count: 9

... followed by the usual RCU CPU stalls and deadlock.

There was never a case pre commit 00d909a1 where
wait_for_complete(&se_cmd->cmd_wait_comp) was able to be interrupted, so to
address this for v4.19+ moving forward go ahead and use
wait_event_lock_irq_timeout() instead so new code works with all fabric
drivers.

Also for commit 00d909a1, fix a minor regression in
target_release_cmd_kref() to only wake_up the new se_sess->cmd_list_wq only
when shutdown has actually been triggered via se_sess->sess_tearing_down.

Fixes: 00d909a1 ("scsi: target: Make the session shutdown code also wait for commands that are being aborted")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.19+
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Cc: Bryant G. Ly <bryantly@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: default avatarNicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarNicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarBryant G. Ly <bly@catalogicsoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMartin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
parent 25ab0bc3
......@@ -2754,7 +2754,7 @@ static void target_release_cmd_kref(struct kref *kref)
if (se_sess) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&se_sess->sess_cmd_lock, flags);
list_del_init(&se_cmd->se_cmd_list);
if (list_empty(&se_sess->sess_cmd_list))
if (se_sess->sess_tearing_down && list_empty(&se_sess->sess_cmd_list))
wake_up(&se_sess->cmd_list_wq);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&se_sess->sess_cmd_lock, flags);
}
......@@ -2907,7 +2907,7 @@ void target_wait_for_sess_cmds(struct se_session *se_sess)
spin_lock_irq(&se_sess->sess_cmd_lock);
do {
ret = wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout(
ret = wait_event_lock_irq_timeout(
se_sess->cmd_list_wq,
list_empty(&se_sess->sess_cmd_list),
se_sess->sess_cmd_lock, 180 * HZ);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment