| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20081229095739.GA10084@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:57:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unsafe locks seen with netperf on net-2.6.29 tree
* Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:25:44AM +0000, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> >
> > [ 1439.758437] ======================================================
> > [ 1439.758724] [ INFO: soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock order detected ]
> > [ 1439.758868] 2.6.28-rc8-net-next-igb #13
> > [ 1439.759007] ------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 1439.759150] netperf/22302 [HC0[0]:SC0[1]:HE1:SE0] is trying to acquire:
> > [ 1439.759293] (&fbc->lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803691a6>]
> > __percpu_counter_add+0x4a/0x6d
> > [ 1439.759581]
> > [ 1439.759582] and this task is already holding:
> > [ 1439.759853] (slock-AF_INET){-+..}, at: [<ffffffff804fdca6>]
> > tcp_close+0x16c/0x2da
> > [ 1439.760137] which would create a new lock dependency:
> > [ 1439.762122] (slock-AF_INET){-+..} -> (&fbc->lock){--..}
>
> This is a false positive. The lock slock is not a normal lock.
> It's an ancient creature that's a spinlock in interrupt context
> and a semaphore in process context.
>
> In particular, holding slock in process context does not disable
> softirqs and you're still allowed to take the spinlock portion of slock
> on the same CPU through an interrupt. What happens is that the softirq
> will notice that the slock is already taken by process context, and
> defer the work for later.
False positive or not, this splat has now been allowed upstream - i just
got it with v2.6.28-3114-g3c92ec8:
[ 42.312021] eth0: no IPv6 routers present
[ 71.252349]
[ 71.252354] =================================
[ 71.256258] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
[ 71.256258] 2.6.28-tip-03857-g33ad6a3-dirty #13095
[ 71.256258] ---------------------------------
[ 71.256258] inconsistent {softirq-on-W} -> {in-softirq-W} usage.
[ 71.256258] cc1/3913 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
[ 71.256258] (&fbc->lock){-+..}, at: [<c0417b35>] __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
[ 71.256258] {softirq-on-W} state was registered at:
[ 71.256258] [<c016696c>] __lock_acquire+0x4cc/0x640
[ 71.256258] [<c0166b69>] lock_acquire+0x89/0xc0
[ 71.256258] [<c0dddb7b>] _spin_lock+0x3b/0x70
[ 71.256258] [<c0417b35>] __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
[ 71.256258] [<c01bf0fa>] get_empty_filp+0x6a/0x1d0
[ 71.256258] [<c01c85e9>] path_lookup_open+0x29/0x90
[ 71.256258] [<c01c86e2>] do_filp_open+0x92/0x7a0
[ 71.256258] [<c01bc32c>] do_sys_open+0x4c/0x90
[ 71.256258] [<c01bc3de>] sys_open+0x2e/0x40
[ 71.256258] [<c0103e6f>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x43
[ 71.256258] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 71.256258] irq event stamp: 18174
[ 71.256258] hardirqs last enabled at (18174): [<c0196de6>] free_hot_cold_page+0x1b6/0x280
[ 71.256258] hardirqs last disabled at (18173): [<c0196d3e>] free_hot_cold_page+0x10e/0x280
[ 71.256258] softirqs last enabled at (18136): [<c0143ee2>] __do_softirq+0x132/0x180
[ 71.256258] softirqs last disabled at (18139): [<c010631a>] call_on_stack+0x1a/0x30
[ 71.256258]
[ 71.256258] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 71.256258] 4 locks held by cc1/3913:
[ 71.256258] #0: (rcu_read_lock){..--}, at: [<c0ba49b0>] net_rx_action+0xd0/0x250
[ 71.256258] #1: (rcu_read_lock){..--}, at: [<c0ba1f62>] netif_receive_skb+0xf2/0x340
[ 71.256258] #2: (rcu_read_lock){..--}, at: [<c0c01556>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0x36/0x200
[ 71.256258] #3: (slock-AF_INET/1){-+..}, at: [<c0c1f3b8>] tcp_v4_rcv+0x5b8/0x820
[ 71.256258]
[ 71.256258] stack backtrace:
[ 71.256258] Pid: 3913, comm: cc1 Not tainted 2.6.28-tip-03857-g33ad6a3-dirty #13095
[ 71.256258] Call Trace:
[ 71.256258] [<c0163fc6>] print_usage_bug+0x176/0x1d0
[ 71.256258] [<c01662ef>] mark_lock+0xbcf/0xd80
[ 71.256258] [<c0109566>] ? sched_clock+0x16/0x40
[ 71.256258] [<c016692b>] __lock_acquire+0x48b/0x640
[ 71.256258] [<c0167581>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x81/0x1e0
[ 71.256258] [<c01673f0>] ? mark_held_locks+0x30/0x80
[ 71.256258] [<c0196de6>] ? free_hot_cold_page+0x1b6/0x280
[ 71.256258] [<c0166b69>] lock_acquire+0x89/0xc0
[ 71.256258] [<c0417b35>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
[ 71.256258] [<c0dddb7b>] _spin_lock+0x3b/0x70
[ 71.256258] [<c0417b35>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
[ 71.256258] [<c0417b35>] __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
[ 71.256258] [<c0c0ac19>] inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x89/0x160
[ 71.256258] [<c0c0a1b5>] ? inet_csk_clear_xmit_timers+0x45/0x50
[ 71.256258] [<c0c0cbad>] tcp_done+0x4d/0x70
[ 71.256258] [<c0c16b6c>] tcp_rcv_state_process+0x68c/0x950
[ 71.256258] [<c0c1bd66>] ? tcp_v4_md5_do_lookup+0x16/0x70
[ 71.256258] [<c0c1e68b>] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0xdb/0x340
[ 71.256258] [<c0c1f3b8>] ? tcp_v4_rcv+0x5b8/0x820
[ 71.256258] [<c0dddb2f>] ? _spin_lock_nested+0x5f/0x70
[ 71.256258] [<c0c1f3d6>] tcp_v4_rcv+0x5d6/0x820
[ 71.256258] [<c0c219be>] ? raw_local_deliver+0xe/0x190
[ 71.256258] [<c0c01556>] ? ip_local_deliver_finish+0x36/0x200
[ 71.256258] [<c0c015d6>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0xb6/0x200
[ 71.256258] [<c0c01556>] ? ip_local_deliver_finish+0x36/0x200
[ 71.256258] [<c0c01752>] ip_local_deliver+0x32/0xa0
[ 71.256258] [<c0c01520>] ? ip_local_deliver_finish+0x0/0x200
[ 71.256258] [<c0c018ce>] ip_rcv_finish+0x10e/0x2f0
[ 71.256258] [<c0c017c0>] ? ip_rcv_finish+0x0/0x2f0
[ 71.256258] [<c0c01c8c>] ip_rcv+0x1dc/0x290
[ 71.256258] [<c0c017c0>] ? ip_rcv_finish+0x0/0x2f0
[ 71.256258] [<c0c01ab0>] ? ip_rcv+0x0/0x290
[ 71.256258] [<c0ba210c>] netif_receive_skb+0x29c/0x340
[ 71.256258] [<c0ba1f62>] ? netif_receive_skb+0xf2/0x340
[ 71.256258] [<c0166815>] ? __lock_acquire+0x375/0x640
[ 71.256258] [<c0b996d9>] ? skb_pull+0x9/0x40
[ 71.256258] [<c060f44e>] nv_napi_poll+0x33e/0x630
[ 71.256258] [<c0ba4a34>] net_rx_action+0x154/0x250
[ 71.256258] [<c0ba49b0>] ? net_rx_action+0xd0/0x250
[ 71.256258] [<c0143e59>] __do_softirq+0xa9/0x180
[ 71.256258] [<c0143db0>] ? __do_softirq+0x0/0x180
[ 71.256258] <IRQ> [<c012d778>] ? idle_cpu+0x8/0x30
[ 71.256258] [<c014436c>] ? irq_exit+0x7c/0x90
[ 71.256258] [<c0106601>] ? do_IRQ+0xa1/0x120
[ 71.256258] [<c010452c>] ? common_interrupt+0x2c/0x34
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists