| 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: <1335688036.2900.80.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:27:16 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@...p.net.lb>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jmorris@...ei.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: inconsistent lock/deadlock crash, vanilla 3.3.4, 32bit, tcp
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 10:41 +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> I apologize for late night post, and a lot of trash left in report.
> I will cleanup it up now, and send with CC to maintainers.
>
> Server job are proxy, with very high rate of new connections.
> Deadlock at peaktime can be easily reproduced in 10-15 minutes.
>
> Deadlock occured on almost all 3.3-stable versions (tried 3.3.3 -
> 3.3.4). It is not easy to try older kernel,
> but if required i can try.
> Usually also, because SYN rate very high, i can see:
> [ 51.612987] TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 8080. Sending
> cookies. Check SNMP counters.
>
> [ 762.903868]
> [ 762.903880] =================================
> [ 762.903890] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [ 762.903903] 3.3.4-build-0061 #8 Not tainted
> [ 762.904133] ---------------------------------
> [ 762.904344] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> [ 762.904542] squid/1603 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> [ 762.904542] (key#3){+.?...}, at: [<c0232cc4>]
> __percpu_counter_sum+0xd/0x58
> [ 762.904542] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> [ 762.904542] [<c0158b84>] __lock_acquire+0x284/0xc26
> [ 762.904542] [<c01598e8>] lock_acquire+0x71/0x85
> [ 762.904542] [<c0349765>] _raw_spin_lock+0x33/0x40
> [ 762.904542] [<c0232c93>] __percpu_counter_add+0x58/0x7c
> [ 762.904542] [<c02cfde1>] sk_clone_lock+0x1e5/0x200
> [ 762.904542] [<c0303ee4>] inet_csk_clone_lock+0xe/0x78
> [ 762.904542] [<c0315778>] tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1b/0x404
> [ 762.904542] [<c031339c>] tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock+0x32/0x1c1
> [ 762.904542] [<c031615a>] tcp_check_req+0x1fd/0x2d7
> [ 762.904542] [<c0313f77>] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0xab/0x194
> [ 762.904542] [<c03153bb>] tcp_v4_rcv+0x3b3/0x5cc
> [ 762.904542] [<c02fc0c4>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0x13a/0x1e9
> [ 762.904542] [<c02fc539>] NF_HOOK.clone.11+0x46/0x4d
> [ 762.904542] [<c02fc652>] ip_local_deliver+0x41/0x45
> [ 762.904542] [<c02fc4d1>] ip_rcv_finish+0x31a/0x33c
> [ 762.904542] [<c02fc539>] NF_HOOK.clone.11+0x46/0x4d
> [ 762.904542] [<c02fc857>] ip_rcv+0x201/0x23e
> [ 762.904542] [<c02daa3a>] __netif_receive_skb+0x319/0x368
> [ 762.904542] [<c02dac07>] netif_receive_skb+0x4e/0x7d
> [ 762.904542] [<c02dacf6>] napi_skb_finish+0x1e/0x34
> [ 762.904542] [<c02db122>] napi_gro_receive+0x20/0x24
> [ 762.904542] [<f85d1743>] e1000_receive_skb+0x3f/0x45 [e1000e]
> [ 762.904542] [<f85d3464>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x1f9/0x284 [e1000e]
> [ 762.904542] [<f85d3926>] e1000_clean+0x62/0x1f4 [e1000e]
> [ 762.904542] [<c02db228>] net_rx_action+0x90/0x160
> [ 762.904542] [<c012a445>] __do_softirq+0x7b/0x118
> [ 762.904542] irq event stamp: 156915469
> [ 762.904542] hardirqs last enabled at (156915469): [<c019b4f4>]
> __slab_alloc.clone.58.clone.63+0xc4/0x2de
> [ 762.904542] hardirqs last disabled at (156915468): [<c019b452>]
> __slab_alloc.clone.58.clone.63+0x22/0x2de
> [ 762.904542] softirqs last enabled at (156915466): [<c02ce677>]
> lock_sock_nested+0x64/0x6c
> [ 762.904542] softirqs last disabled at (156915464): [<c0349914>]
> _raw_spin_lock_bh+0xe/0x45
> [ 762.904542]
> [ 762.904542] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 762.904542] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 762.904542]
> [ 762.904542] CPU0
> [ 762.904542] ----
> [ 762.904542] lock(key#3);
> [ 762.904542] <Interrupt>
> [ 762.904542] lock(key#3);
> [ 762.904542]
> [ 762.904542] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 762.904542]
> [ 762.904542] 1 lock held by squid/1603:
> [ 762.904542] #0: (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: [<c03055c0>]
> lock_sock+0xa/0xc
> [ 762.904542]
> [ 762.904542] stack backtrace:
> [ 762.904542] Pid: 1603, comm: squid Not tainted 3.3.4-build-0061 #8
> [ 762.904542] Call Trace:
> [ 762.904542] [<c0347b73>] ? printk+0x18/0x1d
> [ 762.904542] [<c015873a>] valid_state+0x1f6/0x201
> [ 762.904542] [<c0158816>] mark_lock+0xd1/0x1bb
> [ 762.904542] [<c015876b>] ? mark_lock+0x26/0x1bb
> [ 762.904542] [<c015805d>] ? check_usage_forwards+0x77/0x77
> [ 762.904542] [<c0158bf8>] __lock_acquire+0x2f8/0xc26
> [ 762.904542] [<c0159b8e>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5d/0x7b
> [ 762.904542] [<c0159cf6>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
> [ 762.904542] [<c0158dd4>] ? __lock_acquire+0x4d4/0xc26
> [ 762.904542] [<c01598e8>] lock_acquire+0x71/0x85
> [ 762.904542] [<c0232cc4>] ? __percpu_counter_sum+0xd/0x58
> [ 762.904542] [<c0349765>] _raw_spin_lock+0x33/0x40
> [ 762.904542] [<c0232cc4>] ? __percpu_counter_sum+0xd/0x58
> [ 762.904542] [<c0232cc4>] __percpu_counter_sum+0xd/0x58
> [ 762.904542] [<c02cebc4>] __sk_mem_schedule+0xdd/0x1c7
> [ 762.904542] [<c02d178d>] ? __alloc_skb+0x76/0x100
> [ 762.904542] [<c0305e8e>] sk_wmem_schedule+0x21/0x2d
> [ 762.904542] [<c0306370>] sk_stream_alloc_skb+0x42/0xaa
> [ 762.904542] [<c0306567>] tcp_sendmsg+0x18f/0x68b
> [ 762.904542] [<c031f3dc>] ? ip_fast_csum+0x30/0x30
> [ 762.904542] [<c0320193>] inet_sendmsg+0x53/0x5a
> [ 762.904542] [<c02cb633>] sock_aio_write+0xd2/0xda
> [ 762.904542] [<c015876b>] ? mark_lock+0x26/0x1bb
> [ 762.904542] [<c01a1017>] do_sync_write+0x9f/0xd9
> [ 762.904542] [<c01a2111>] ? file_free_rcu+0x2f/0x2f
> [ 762.904542] [<c01a17a1>] vfs_write+0x8f/0xab
> [ 762.904542] [<c01a284d>] ? fget_light+0x75/0x7c
> [ 762.904542] [<c01a1900>] sys_write+0x3d/0x5e
> [ 762.904542] [<c0349ec9>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> [ 762.904542] [<c0340000>] ? rp_sidt+0x41/0x83
>
OK, so when we have memory pressure we can call
percpu_counter_read_positive() with SOFTIRQ enabled, and lockdep
complains...
This bug was probably added in 2008, in commit 1748376b6626a
(net: Use a percpu_counter for sockets_allocated)
I'll have to backport the following patch, can you test it please ?
Thanks !
net/core/sock.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index b2e14c0..08fc929 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -1818,7 +1818,9 @@ int __sk_mem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size, int kind)
if (!sk_under_memory_pressure(sk))
return 1;
+ local_bh_disable();
alloc = sk_sockets_allocated_read_positive(sk);
+ local_bh_enable();
if (sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 2) > alloc *
sk_mem_pages(sk->sk_wmem_queued +
atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) +
--
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