linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3] net: stmmac: protect updates of 64-bit statistics counters

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]

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:03:12 +0100
From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, Alexandre
 Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
 Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Samuel Holland
 <samuel@...lland.org>, "open list:STMMAC ETHERNET DRIVER"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE"
 <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>, "moderated list:ARM/STM32
 ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, open list
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:ARM/Allwinner sunXi SoC support"
 <linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev>, Marc Haber <mh+netdev@...schlus.de>, Andrew
 Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 stable@...r.kernel.org, alexis.lothore@...tlin.com, Guenter Roeck
 <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: stmmac: protect updates of 64-bit
 statistics counters

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:01:53 +0100
Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:23:53 +0100
> "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
> 
> > On 28.02.24 12:03, Petr Tesařík wrote:  
> > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:19:56 +0100
> > > "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuisinfo> wrote:
> > >     
> > >> Net maintainers, chiming in here, as it seems handling this regression
> > >> stalled.    
> > > Indeed, I was too busy with sandbox mode...    
> > 
> > Hmm, no reply in the past week to Petr's request for help from someone
> > with more knowledge about the field. :-/
> > 
> > So I guess this means that this won't be fixed for 6.8? Unfortunate, but
> > well, that's how it it sometimes.  
> 
> For the record, I _can_ reproduce lockdep splats on my device, but they
> don't make any sense to me. They seem to confirm Jisheng Zhang's
> conclusion that lockdep conflates two locks which should have different
> lock-classes.
> 
> So far I have noticed only one issue: the per-cpu syncp's are not
> initialized. I'll recompile and see if that's what confuses lockdep.

That wasn't the issue. FTR the syncp was in fact initialized, because
devm_netdev_alloc_pcpu_stats() is a macro that also takes care of the
initialization of the syncp struct field.

The problem is u64_stats_init().

Commit 9464ca650008 ("net: make u64_stats_init() a function") changed
it to an inline function. But that's wrong. It uses seqcount_init(),
which in turn declares:

	static struct lock_class_key __key;

This assumes that each lock gets its own instance. But if
u64_stats_init() is a function (albeit an inline one), all calls
within the same file end up using the same instance.

Eric, would it be OK to revert the above-mentioned commit?

Petr T