linux-kernel - Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330 __netif

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:35:00 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
	kaber@...sh.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
	__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:03:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 08:54 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:59:21AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:20:36 +0000
> > > 
> > > > PS: if there is nothing new in lockdep the classical method would
> > > > be to change this static array:
> > > > 
> > > > static struct lock_class_key
> > > > netdev_xmit_lock_key[ARRAY_SIZE(netdev_lock_type)];
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > 
> > > > static struct lock_class_key
> > > > netdev_xmit_lock_key[ARRAY_SIZE(netdev_lock_type)][MAX_NUM_TX_QUEUES];
> > > > 
> > > > and set lockdep classes per queue as well. (If we are sure we don't
> > > > need lockdep subclasses anywhere this could be optimized by using
> > > > one lock_class_key per 8 queues and spin_lock_nested()).
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately MAX_NUM_TX_QUEUES is USHORT_MAX, so this isn't really
> > > a feasible approach.
> > 
> > Is it used by real devices already? Maybe for the beginning we could
> > start with something less?
> > 
> > > spin_lock_nested() isn't all that viable either, as the subclass
> > > limit is something like 8.
> > 
> > This method would need to do some additional counting: depending of
> > a queue number each 8 subsequent queues share (are set to) the same
> > class and their number mod 8 gives the subqueue number for
> > spin_lock_nested().
> > 
> > I'll try to find if there is something new around this in lockdep.
> > (lockdep people added to CC.)
> 
> There isn't.
> 
> Is there a static data structure that the driver needs to instantiate to
> 'create' a queue? Something like:
> 
> /* this imaginary e1000 hardware has 16 hardware queues */
> static struct net_tx_queue e1000e_tx_queues[16]; 

I guess, not.

Then, IMHO, we could be practical and simply skip lockdep validation
for "some" range of locks: e.g. to set the table for the first 256
queues only, and to do e.g. __raw_spin_lock() for bigger numbers. (If
there are any bad locking patterns this should be enough for checking.)

Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/