linux-kernel - Re: oops in tcp_xmit_retransmit

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1007112224110.15736@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:25:05 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Fehrmann, Henning" <henning.fehrmann@....mpg.de>,
	Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@....mpg.de>
Subject: Re: oops in tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue() w/ v2.6.32.15

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 19:46 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > > Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 19:06 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > > > Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 19:09 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen a écrit :
> > > > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > We've been seeing oops in tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue() w/ 2.6.32.15.
> > > > > > Please see the attached photoshoot.  This is happening on a HPC
> > > > > > cluster and very interestingly caused by one particular job.  How long
> > > > > > it takes isn't clear yet (at least more than a day) but when it
> > > > > > happens it happens on a lot of machines in relatively short time.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With a bit of disassemblying, I've found that the oops is happening
> > > > > > during tcp_for_write_queue_from() because the skb->next points to
> > > > > > NULL.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  void tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue(struct sock *sk)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >  ...
> > > > > > 	if (tp->retransmit_skb_hint) {
> > > > > > 		skb = tp->retransmit_skb_hint;
> > > > > > 		last_lost = TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq;
> > > > > > 		if (after(last_lost, tp->retransmit_high))
> > > > > > 			last_lost = tp->retransmit_high;
> > > > > > 	} else {
> > > > > > 		skb = tcp_write_queue_head(sk);
> > > > > > 		last_lost = tp->snd_una;
> > > > > > 	}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  =>	tcp_for_write_queue_from(skb, sk) {
> > > > > > 		 __u8 sacked = TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 		 if (skb == tcp_send_head(sk))
> > > > > > 			 break;
> > > > > > 		 /* we could do better than to assign each time */
> > > > > > 		 if (hole == NULL)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This can happen for one of the following reasons,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. tp->retransmit_skb_hint is NULL and tcp_write_queue_head() is NULL
> > > > > >    too.  ie. tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue() is called on an empty write
> > > > > >    queue for some reason.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2. tp->retransmit_skb_hint is pointing to a skb which is not on the
> > > > > >    write_queue.  ie. somebody forgot to update hint while removing the
> > > > > >    skb from the write queue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Once again I've read the unlinkers through, and only thing that could 
> > > > > cause this is tcp_send_synack (others do deal with the hints) but I think 
> > > > > Eric already proposed a patch to that but we never got anywhere due to 
> > > > > some counterargument why it wouldn't take place (too far away for me to 
> > > > > remember, see archives about the discussions). ...But if you want be dead 
> > > > > sure some WARN_ON there might not hurt. Also the purging of the whole 
> > > > > queue was a similar suspect I then came across (but that would only 
> > > > > materialize with sk reuse happening e.g., with nfs which the other guys 
> > > > > weren't using).
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm.
> > > > 
> > > > This sounds familiar to me, but I cannot remember the discussion you
> > > > mention or the patch.
> > > > 
> > > > Or maybe it was the TCP transaction thing ? (including data in SYN or
> > > > SYN-ACK packet)
> 
> No. That's another thing. ...I've already found it with google today but 
> cannot seem to find it again. I thought I used tcp_make_synack eric but 
> for some reason I only get these transaction fix hits. I'll keep looking.

Right, this one:

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2009/10/29/6259073

-- 
 i.