linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net -v2] [BUGFIX] bonding: use flush_delayed_work_sync in bond

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: <17144.1319178396@death>
Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:26:36 -0700
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	=?UTF-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico_Wang?= 
	<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net -v2] [BUGFIX] bonding: use flush_delayed_work_sync in bond_close

Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:01:02 -0700
>>>Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >The bond_close() calls cancel_delayed_work() to cancel delayed works.
>>>> >It, however, cannot cancel works that were already queued in workqueue.
>>>> >The bond_open() initializes work->data, and proccess_one_work() refers
>>>> >get_work_cwq(work)->wq->flags. The get_work_cwq() returns NULL when
>>>> >work->data has been initialized. Thus, a panic occurs.
>>>> >
>>>> >This patch uses flush_delayed_work_sync() instead of cancel_delayed_work()
>>>> >in bond_close(). It cancels delayed timer and waits for work to finish
>>>> >execution. So, it can avoid the null pointer dereference due to the
>>>> >parallel executions of proccess_one_work() and initializing proccess
>>>> >of bond_open().
>>>>
>>>>      I'm setting up to test this.  I have a dim recollection that we
>>>> tried this some years ago, and there was a different deadlock that
>>>> manifested through the flush path.  Perhaps changes since then have
>>>> removed that problem.
>>>>
>>>>      -J
>>>
>>>Won't this deadlock on RTNL.  The problem is that:
>>>
>>>   CPU0                            CPU1
>>>  rtnl_lock
>>>      bond_close
>>>                                 delayed_work
>>>                                   mii_work
>>>                                     read_lock(bond->lock);
>>>                                     read_unlock(bond->lock);
>>>                                     rtnl_lock... waiting for CPU0
>>>      flush_delayed_work_sync
>>>          waiting for delayed_work to finish...
>>
>>        Yah, that was it.  We discussed this a couple of years ago in
>> regards to a similar patch:
>>
>> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/12/17/3
>>
>>        The short version is that we could rework the rtnl_lock inside
>> the montiors to be conditional and retry on failure (where "retry" means
>> "reschedule the work and try again later," not "spin retrying on rtnl").
>> That should permit the use of flush or cancel to terminate the work
>> items.
>
>Yes? Even if we use rtnl_trylock(), doesn't flush_delayed_work_sync()
>still queue the pending delayed work and wait for it to be finished?

	Yes, it does.  The original patch wants to use flush instead of
cancel to wait for the work to finish, because there's evidently a
possibility of getting back into bond_open before the work item
executes, and bond_open would reinitialize the work queue and corrupt
the queued work item.

	The original patch series, and recipe for destruction, is here:

	http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg176382.html

	I've been unable to reproduce the work queue panic locally,
although it sounds plausible.

	Mitsuo: can you provide the precise bonding configuration you're
using to induce the problem?  Driver options, number and type of slaves,
etc.

>Maybe I am too blind, why do we need rtnl_lock for cancel_delayed_work()
>inside bond_close()?

	We don't need RTNL for cancel/flush.  However, bond_close is an
ndo_stop operation, and is called in the dev_close path, which always
occurs under RTNL.  The mii / arp monitor work functions separately
acquire RTNL if they need to perform various failover related
operations.

	I'm working on a patch that should resolve the mii / arp monitor
RTNL problem as I described above (if rtnl_trylock fails, punt and
reschedule the work).  I need to rearrange the netdev_bonding_change
stuff a bit as well, since it acquires RTNL separately.

	Once these changes are made to mii / arp monitor, then
bond_close can call flush instead of cancel, which should eliminate the
original problem described at the top.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com

--
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/