| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:11:53 +0100
From: Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>
To: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: LOCKDEP complaints in l2tp_xmit_skb()
In testing L2TP ethernet pseudowires I have observed some complaints
from lockdep due to circular/recursive locking in l2tp_xmit_skb().
I'm testing the -net tree, which includes Eric's recent patches to
squash another lockdep error by converting l2tp to LLTX. Git hash
d7ffde35e31a811.
My test setup consists of two AMD64 boxes, both running 32bit kernels.
One box is SMP, the other UP. My test procedure consists of creating
an L2TP tunnel containing N ethernet pseudowires. I then run N iperf
sessions across the N pseudowires. The simplest configuration is:
[On HOST A]
ip l2tp add tunnel \
tunnel_id 1 \
peer_tunnel_id 1 \
local <HOST A ip> \
remote <HOST B ip> \
udp_sport 9999 \
udp_dport 9999
ip add session \
tunnel_id 1 \
session_id 1 \
peer_session_id 1
ip addr add 172.16.0.1 \
peer 172.16.0.2/24 \
broadcast 172.16.0.255 \
dev l2tpeth0
ip link set l2tpeth0 up
iperf -s -B 172.16.0.1
[On HOST B]
ip l2tp add tunnel \
tunnel_id 1 \
peer_tunnel_id 1 \
local <HOST B ip> \
remote <HOST A ip> \
udp_sport 9999 \
udp_dport 9999
ip add session \
tunnel_id 1 \
session_id 1 \
peer_session_id 1
ip addr add 172.16.0.2 \
peer 172.16.0.1/24 \
broadcast 172.16.0.255 \
dev l2tpeth0
ip link set l2tpeth0 up
iperf -c 172.16.0.1
If I run four concurrent iperf sessions across four pseudowires I
see lockdep complaints on both SMP and UP boxes.
Lockdep output for the AMD64 SMP machine:
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.5.0-rc2-net-lockdep-u64-sync-006-+ #2 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
swapper/1/0 is trying to acquire lock:
(slock-AF_INET){+.-...}, at: [<f85f5bff>] l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&sch->busylock)->rlock){+.-...}, at: [<c14fb1b2>] dev_queue_xmit+0xb42/0xbd0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&(&sch->busylock)->rlock){+.-...}:
[<c10a8b48>] lock_acquire+0x88/0x120
[<c16157bb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x70
[<c1535cf8>] __inet_hash_nolisten+0xb8/0x140
[<c1536b77>] __inet_hash_connect+0x267/0x2c0
[<c1536c10>] inet_hash_connect+0x40/0x50
[<c154e4d4>] tcp_v4_connect+0x2c4/0x510
[<c156293f>] inet_stream_connect+0x1ff/0x380
[<c14e30c1>] sys_connect+0xc1/0xe0
[<c14e3d13>] sys_socketcall+0xe3/0x2e0
[<c161d89f>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x38
-> #0 (slock-AF_INET){+.-...}:
[<c10a78cc>] __lock_acquire+0xaec/0x17d0
[<c10a8b48>] lock_acquire+0x88/0x120
[<c16157bb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x70
[<f85f5bff>] l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<f851432d>] l2tp_eth_dev_xmit+0x2d/0x40 [l2tp_eth]
[<c14fa32f>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x49f/0x7e0
[<c1515819>] sch_direct_xmit+0xa9/0x250
[<c14fa835>] dev_queue_xmit+0x1c5/0xbd0
[<c159442c>] ip6_finish_output2+0x11c/0x620
[<c159813f>] ip6_finish_output+0x7f/0x1e0
[<c15982ea>] ip6_output+0x4a/0x1f0
[<c15bbddc>] mld_sendpack+0x21c/0x530
[<c15bc817>] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x187/0x260
[<c1055d10>] run_timer_softirq+0x140/0x370
[<c104da27>] __do_softirq+0x97/0x1f0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&(&sch->busylock)->rlock);
lock(slock-AF_INET);
lock(&(&sch->busylock)->rlock);
lock(slock-AF_INET);
*** DEADLOCK ***
5 locks held by swapper/1/0:
#0: (&idev->mc_ifc_timer){+.-...}, at: [<c1055c88>] run_timer_softirq+0xb8/0x370
#1: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<c15bbbc0>] mld_sendpack+0x0/0x530
#2: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<c159434f>] ip6_finish_output2+0x3f/0x620
#3: (rcu_read_lock_bh){.+....}, at: [<c14fa670>] dev_queue_xmit+0x0/0xbd0
#4: (&(&sch->busylock)->rlock){+.-...}, at: [<c14fb1b2>] dev_queue_xmit+0xb42/0xbd0
stack backtrace:
Pid: 0, comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.5.0-rc2-net-lockdep-u64-sync-006-+ #2
Call Trace:
[<c160b540>] print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1be
[<c10a78cc>] __lock_acquire+0xaec/0x17d0
[<c10a8b48>] lock_acquire+0x88/0x120
[<f85f5bff>] ? l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<c16157bb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x70
[<f85f5bff>] ? l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<f85f5bff>] l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<f851432d>] l2tp_eth_dev_xmit+0x2d/0x40 [l2tp_eth]
[<c14fa32f>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x49f/0x7e0
[<c14f9ee1>] ? dev_hard_start_xmit+0x51/0x7e0
[<c1515819>] sch_direct_xmit+0xa9/0x250
[<c16157e1>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x61/0x70
[<c14fa835>] dev_queue_xmit+0x1c5/0xbd0
[<c14fa670>] ? dev_hard_start_xmit+0x7e0/0x7e0
[<c159442c>] ip6_finish_output2+0x11c/0x620
[<c159434f>] ? ip6_finish_output2+0x3f/0x620
[<c159813f>] ip6_finish_output+0x7f/0x1e0
[<c15982ea>] ip6_output+0x4a/0x1f0
[<c15a6ae0>] ? ip6_blackhole_route+0x2c0/0x2c0
[<c15bbddc>] mld_sendpack+0x21c/0x530
[<c15bbbc0>] ? igmp6_group_added+0x170/0x170
[<c15bc817>] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x187/0x260
[<c1055d10>] run_timer_softirq+0x140/0x370
[<c1055c88>] ? run_timer_softirq+0xb8/0x370
[<c1085776>] ? rebalance_domains+0x1b6/0x2a0
[<c15bc690>] ? igmp6_timer_handler+0x80/0x80
[<c104da27>] __do_softirq+0x97/0x1f0
[<c104d990>] ? local_bh_enable_ip+0xd0/0xd0
<IRQ> [<c104ddce>] ? irq_exit+0x7e/0xa0
[<c161e0f9>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x59/0x88
[<c12fb498>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0xc/0x14
[<c1616882>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x36/0x3c
[<c10380d5>] ? native_safe_halt+0x5/0x10
[<c1018bdf>] ? default_idle+0x4f/0x1e0
[<c1018dc1>] ? amd_e400_idle+0x51/0x100
[<c10199c9>] ? cpu_idle+0xb9/0xe0
[<c16038fc>] ? start_secondary+0x1ea/0x1f0
And on AMD64 UP machine:
============================================
INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
.5.0-rc2-net-lockdep-u64-sync-006-+ #2 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
wapper/0/0 is trying to acquire lock:
(slock-AF_INET){+.-...}, at: [<f864fbff>] l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
ut task is already holding lock:
(slock-AF_INET){+.-...}, at: [<c154c177>] tcp_delack_timer+0x17/0x1e0
ther info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(slock-AF_INET);
lock(slock-AF_INET);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
locks held by swapper/0/0:
#0: (&icsk->icsk_delack_timer){+.-...}, at: [<c1055c88>] run_timer_softirq+0xb8/0x370
#1: (slock-AF_INET){+.-...}, at: [<c154c177>] tcp_delack_timer+0x17/0x1e0
#2: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<c1531bf0>] ip_queue_xmit+0x0/0x610
#3: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<c1531456>] ip_finish_output+0x106/0x710
#4: (rcu_read_lock_bh){.+....}, at: [<c14fa670>] dev_queue_xmit+0x0/0xbd0
tack backtrace:
id: 0, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.5.0-rc2-net-lockdep-u64-sync-006-+ #2
all Trace:
[<c10a7b32>] __lock_acquire+0xd52/0x17d0
[<c1017ba8>] ? sched_clock+0x8/0x10
[<c107edbb>] ? sched_clock_local+0xcb/0x1c0
[<c10a8b48>] lock_acquire+0x88/0x120
[<f864fbff>] ? l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<c16157bb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x70
[<f864fbff>] ? l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<f864fbff>] l2tp_xmit_skb+0x13f/0x8e0 [l2tp_core]
[<f853032d>] l2tp_eth_dev_xmit+0x2d/0x40 [l2tp_eth]
[<c14fa32f>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x49f/0x7e0
[<c14f9ee1>] ? dev_hard_start_xmit+0x51/0x7e0
[<c1515819>] sch_direct_xmit+0xa9/0x250
[<c16157e1>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x61/0x70
[<c14fa835>] dev_queue_xmit+0x1c5/0xbd0
[<c14fa670>] ? dev_hard_start_xmit+0x7e0/0x7e0
[<c15065f7>] neigh_resolve_output+0x117/0x230
[<c1514880>] ? eth_rebuild_header+0x80/0x80
[<c1531612>] ip_finish_output+0x2c2/0x710
[<c1531456>] ? ip_finish_output+0x106/0x710
[<c1532770>] ? ip_output+0x60/0x120
[<c10a585b>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
[<c153278b>] ip_output+0x7b/0x120
[<c1531b95>] ip_local_out+0x25/0x80
[<c1531d73>] ip_queue_xmit+0x183/0x610
[<c1531bf0>] ? ip_local_out+0x80/0x80
[<c154ecb5>] ? tcp_md5_do_lookup+0x125/0x170
[<c15498c6>] tcp_transmit_skb+0x396/0x970
[<c154bb12>] ? tcp_send_ack+0x32/0x100
[<c154bb9d>] tcp_send_ack+0xbd/0x100
[<c154c271>] tcp_delack_timer+0x111/0x1e0
[<c1055d10>] run_timer_softirq+0x140/0x370
[<c1055c88>] ? run_timer_softirq+0xb8/0x370
[<c154c160>] ? tcp_out_of_resources+0xb0/0xb0
[<c14f88cc>] ? net_rx_action+0x10c/0x210
[<c104da27>] __do_softirq+0x97/0x1f0
[<c104d990>] ? local_bh_enable_ip+0xd0/0xd0
<IRQ> [<c104ddce>] ? irq_exit+0x7e/0xa0
[<c161e02b>] ? do_IRQ+0x4b/0xc0
[<c161de75>] ? common_interrupt+0x35/0x3c
[<c10380d5>] ? native_safe_halt+0x5/0x10
[<c1018bdf>] ? default_idle+0x4f/0x1e0
[<c1018dc1>] ? amd_e400_idle+0x51/0x100
[<c10199c9>] ? cpu_idle+0xb9/0xe0
[<c15eab3e>] ? rest_init+0x112/0x124
[<c15eaa2c>] ? __read_lock_failed+0x14/0x14
[<c1907a11>] ? start_kernel+0x376/0x37c
[<c19074d6>] ? repair_env_string+0x51/0x51
[<c19072f8>] ? i386_start_kernel+0x9b/0xa2
--
Tom Parkin
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists