linux-kernel - Re: [Regression] stress-ng udp-flood causes kernel panic on Ampere Altra

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: <20220702115446.GA25840@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:54:46 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        lukasz.luba@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Regression] stress-ng udp-flood causes kernel panic on Ampere
 Altra

On Sat, Jul 02, 2022 at 12:08:46PM +0100, Kajetan Puchalski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 10:01:10PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com> wrote:
> > > While running the udp-flood test from stress-ng on Ampere Altra (Mt.
> > > Jade platform) I encountered a kernel panic caused by NULL pointer
> > > dereference within nf_conntrack.
> > > 
> > > The issue is present in the latest mainline (5.19-rc4), latest stable
> > > (5.18.8), as well as multiple older stable versions. The last working
> > > stable version I found was 5.15.40.
> > 
> > Do I need a special setup for conntrack?
> 
> I don't think there was any special setup involved, the config I started
> from was a generic distribution config and I didn't change any
> networking-specific options. In case that's helpful here's the .config I
> used.
> 
> https://pastebin.com/Bb2wttdx
> 
> > 
> > No crashes after more than one hour of stress-ng on
> > 1. 4 core amd64 Fedora 5.17 kernel
> > 2. 16 core amd64, linux stable 5.17.15
> > 3. 12 core intel, Fedora 5.18 kernel
> > 4. 3 core aarch64 vm, 5.18.7-200.fc36.aarch64
> > 
> 
> That would make sense, from further experiments I ran it somehow seems
> to be related to the number of workers being spawned by stress-ng along
> with the CPUs/cores involved.
> 
> For instance, running the test with <=25 workers (--udp-flood 25 etc.)
> results in the test running fine for at least 15 minutes.

Another point to keep in mind is that modern ARM processors (ARMv8.1 and
above) have a more relaxed memory model than older ones (and x86), that
can easily exhibit a missing barrier somewhere. I faced this situation
already in the past the first time I ran my code on Graviton2, which
caused crashes that would never happen on A53/A72/A73 cores nor x86.

ARMv8.1 SoCs are not yet widely available for end users like us. A76
is only coming, and A55 has now been available for a bit more than a
year. So testing on regular ARM devices like RPi etc may not exhibit
such differences.

> Running the test with 30 workers results in a panic sometime before it
> hits the 15 minute mark.
> Based on observations there seems to be a corellation between the number
> of workers and how quickly the panic occurs, ie with 30 it takes a few
> minutes, with 160 it consistently happens almost immediately. That also
> holds for various numbers of workers in between.
> 
> On the CPU/core side of things, the machine in question has two CPU
> sockets with 80 identical cores each. All the panics I've encountered
> happened when stress-ng was ran directly and unbound.
> When I tried using hwloc-bind to bind the process to one of the CPU
> sockets, the test ran for 15 mins with 80 and 160 workers with no issues,
> no matter which CPU it was bound to.
> 
> Ie the specific circumstances under which it seems to occur are when the
> test is able to run across multiple CPU sockets with a large number
> of workers being spawned.

This could further fuel the possibliity explained above.

Regards,
Willy