[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <801c9133-b776-a78e-8e98-6ea0f4238dfa@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 09:42:57 +0800
From: wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>,
Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>
CC: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+5e70d01ee8985ae62a3b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] unregister_netdevice: waiting for DEV to become free (7)
在 2022/11/24 8:22, Jason Gunthorpe 写道:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 05:45:53PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>> But it is the caller's responsibility to destroy it since commit
>> dd37d2f59eb8.
>>
>>> The causes are as follows:
>>>
>>> rdma_listen()
>>> rdma_bind_addr()
>>> cma_acquire_dev_by_src_ip()
>>> cma_attach_to_dev()
>>> _cma_attach_to_dev()
>>> cma_dev_get()
>>
>> Thanks for the analysis.
>>
>> And for the two callers of cma_listen_on_dev, looks they have
>> different behaviors with regard to handling failure.
>
> Yes, the CM is not the problem, and that print from it is unrelated
>
Yes, I misanalyzed earlier.
> I patched in netdevice_tracker and get this:
>
> [ 237.475070][ T7541] unregister_netdevice: waiting for vlan0 to become free. Usage count = 2
> [ 237.477311][ T7541] leaked reference.
> [ 237.478378][ T7541] ib_device_set_netdev+0x266/0x730
> [ 237.479848][ T7541] siw_newlink+0x4e0/0xfd0
> [ 237.481100][ T7541] nldev_newlink+0x35c/0x5c0
> [ 237.482121][ T7541] rdma_nl_rcv_msg+0x36d/0x690
> [ 237.483312][ T7541] rdma_nl_rcv+0x2ee/0x430
> [ 237.484483][ T7541] netlink_unicast+0x543/0x7f0
> [ 237.485746][ T7541] netlink_sendmsg+0x918/0xe20
> [ 237.486866][ T7541] sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120
> [ 237.488006][ T7541] ____sys_sendmsg+0x70d/0x8b0
> [ 237.489294][ T7541] ___sys_sendmsg+0x11d/0x1b0
> [ 237.490404][ T7541] __sys_sendmsg+0xfa/0x1d0
> [ 237.491451][ T7541] do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0
> [ 237.492566][ T7541] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
>
> Which seems to confirm my original prediction, except this is siw not
> rxe..
>
Rxe dose not have this issue, maybe because it does not support vlan dev.
> Maybe rxe was the wrong guess, or maybe it is troubled too in other
> reports?
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists