netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

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:	Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:27:01 -0500
From:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
To:	Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl>
Cc:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:11:15PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >>>>>>>drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >>>>>>>+++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>>>@@ -1111,8 +1111,6 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(str
> >>>>>>>out:
> >>>>>>>     write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-       rtnl_unlock();
> >>>>>>>-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Looking at the changeset that added this perhaps the intention
> >>>>>>is to hold the lock? If so we should add an rtnl_lock to the start
> >>>>>>of the function.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	Yes, this function needs to hold locks, and more than just
> >>>>>what's there now.  I believe the following should be correct; I haven't
> >>>>>tested it, though (I'm supposedly on vacation right now).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	The following change should be correct for the
> >>>>>bonding_store_primary case discussed in this thread, and also corrects
> >>>>>the bonding_store_active case which performs similar functions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	The bond_change_active_slave and bond_select_active_slave
> >>>>>functions both require rtnl, bond->lock for read and curr_slave_lock 
> >>>>>for
> >>>>>write_bh, and no other locks.  This is so that the lower level
> >>>>>mode-specific functions can release locks down to just rtnl in order to
> >>>>>call, e.g., dev_set_mac_address with the locks it expects (rtnl only).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>index 11b76b3..28a2d80 100644
> >>>>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>@@ -1075,7 +1075,10 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct 
> >>>>>device
> >>>>>*d,
> >>>>>	struct slave *slave;
> >>>>>	struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-	write_lock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>+	rtnl_lock();
> >>>>>+	read_lock(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>+	write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >F
> >>>>>+
> >>>>>	if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)) {
> >>>>>		printk(KERN_INFO DRV_NAME
> >>>>>		       ": %s: Unable to set primary slave; %s is in mode
> >>>>>		       %d\n",
> >>>>>@@ -1109,8 +1112,8 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct 
> >>>>>device
> >>>>>*d,
> >>>>>		}
> >>>>>	}
> >>>>>out:
> >>>>>-	write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>-
> >>>>>+	write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >>>>>+	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>	rtnl_unlock();
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	return count;
> >>>>>@@ -1190,7 +1193,8 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_active_slave(struct
> >>>>>device *d,
> >>>>>	struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	rtnl_lock();
> >>>>>-	write_lock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>+	read_lock(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>+	write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)) {
> >>>>>		printk(KERN_INFO DRV_NAME
> >>>>>@@ -1247,7 +1251,8 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_active_slave(struct
> >>>>>device *d,
> >>>>>		}
> >>>>>	}
> >>>>>out:
> >>>>>-	write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>+	write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >>>>>+	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>	rtnl_unlock();
> >>>>>
> >>>>>	return count;
> >>>>
> >>>>Vanilla 2.6.24-rc5 plus this patch:
> >>>>
> >>>>=========================================================
> >>>>[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> >>>>2.6.24-rc5 #1
> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>events/0/9 just changed the state of lock:
> >>>>(&mc->mca_lock){-+..}, at: [<c0411c7a>] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x130/0x1fb
> >>>>but this lock took another, soft-read-irq-unsafe lock in the past:
> >>>>(&bond->lock){-.--}
> >>>>
> >>>>and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Grrr, I should have seen that -- sorry.  Try your luck with this instead:
> >><CUT>
> >>
> >>No luck.
> >>
> >>bonding: bond0: setting mode to active-backup (1).
> >>bonding: bond0: Setting MII monitoring interval to 100.
> >>ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): bond0: link is not ready
> >>bonding: bond0: Adding slave eth0.
> >>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow
> >>Control: RX/TX
> >>bonding: bond0: making interface eth0 the new active one.
> >>bonding: bond0: first active interface up!
> >>bonding: bond0: enslaving eth0 as an active interface with an up link.
> >>bonding: bond0: Adding slave eth1.
> >>ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): bond0: link becomes ready
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >>bonding: bond0: enslaving eth1 as a backup interface with a down link.
> >>bonding: bond0: Setting eth0 as primary slave.
> >>bond0: no IPv6 routers present
> >>
> >
> >Based on the console log, I'm guessing your initialization scripts use
> >sysfs to set eth0 as the primary interface for bond0?  Can you confirm?
> 
> Yep, that's correct:
> 
> postup() {
>         if [[ ${IFACE} == "bond0" ]] ; then
>                 echo -n +eth0 > /sys/class/net/${IFACE}/bonding/slaves
>                 echo -n +eth1 > /sys/class/net/${IFACE}/bonding/slaves
>                 echo -n  eth0 > /sys/class/net/${IFACE}/bonding/primary
>         fi
> }
> 

Good. Thanks for the confirmation.

> >If you did somehow use sysfs to set the primary device as eth0, I'm
> >guessing you never see this issue without that line or without this
> >patch.  Please confirm this as well.
> 
> Without this patch I get another error, of course. Unfortunately checking 

:-/


> what happens without using sysfs to set the primary device as eth0, have 
> to wait, as I am not able to test it before Monday.
> 

No problem, thanks for the feedback and quick response.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html