Message-ID: <48EA2C71.6070509@bull.net>
Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:19:13 +0200
From:	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dlezcano@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: deadlock during net device unregistration

Herbert Xu wrote:
> Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net> wrote:
>> 1. Unregister a device, the following routines are called:
>>
>> -> unregister_netdev
>>  -> rtnl_lock
>>  -> unregister_netdevice
>>  -> rtnl_unlock
>>    -> netdev_run_todo
>>      -> netdev_wait_allrefs
> 
> OK, this explains lots of dead-locks that people have been seeing.
> 
> But I think we can go a step further:
> 
> net: Fix netdev_run_todo dead-lock
> 
> Benjamin Thery tracked down a bug that explains many instances
> of the error
> 
> unregister_netdevice: waiting for %s to become free. Usage count = %d
> 
> It turns out that netdev_run_todo can dead-lock with itself if
> a second instance of it is run in a thread that will then free
> a reference to the device waited on by the first instance.
> 
> The problem is really quite silly.  We were trying to create
> parallelism where none was required.  As netdev_run_todo always
> follows a RTNL section, and that todo tasks can only be added
> with the RTNL held, by definition you should only need to wait
> for the very ones that you've added and be done with it.
> 
> There is no need for a second mutex or spinlock.
> 
> This is exactly what the following patch does.

Herbert, thank you for having looked at the issue too.

When I understood how the dead lock happened, I considered playing
with the locks in net_set_todo()/netdev_run_todo(), but as some comments
in the code in this area sounds a bit too cryptic for my brain, I didn't
dare to change them myself. :)

I guess you know a lot better than me the history behind this piece of
code and why it was done this way.

I tested your patch on my testbed during all the afternoon.
It fixes the dead lock I can easily reproduce here with net namespaces
and I didn't produce any regressions on my setup.

Benjamin

> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index e8eb2b4..021f531 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -3808,14 +3808,11 @@ static int dev_new_index(struct net *net)
>  }
>  
>  /* Delayed registration/unregisteration */
> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(net_todo_list_lock);
>  static LIST_HEAD(net_todo_list);
>  
>  static void net_set_todo(struct net_device *dev)
>  {
> -	spin_lock(&net_todo_list_lock);
>  	list_add_tail(&dev->todo_list, &net_todo_list);
> -	spin_unlock(&net_todo_list_lock);
>  }
>  
>  static void rollback_registered(struct net_device *dev)
> @@ -4142,33 +4139,24 @@ static void netdev_wait_allrefs(struct net_device *dev)
>   *	free_netdev(y1);
>   *	free_netdev(y2);
>   *
> - * We are invoked by rtnl_unlock() after it drops the semaphore.
> + * We are invoked by rtnl_unlock().
>   * This allows us to deal with problems:
>   * 1) We can delete sysfs objects which invoke hotplug
>   *    without deadlocking with linkwatch via keventd.
>   * 2) Since we run with the RTNL semaphore not held, we can sleep
>   *    safely in order to wait for the netdev refcnt to drop to zero.
> + *
> + * We must not return until all unregister events added during
> + * the interval the lock was held have been completed.
>   */
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(net_todo_run_mutex);
>  void netdev_run_todo(void)
>  {
>  	struct list_head list;
>  
> -	/* Need to guard against multiple cpu's getting out of order. */
> -	mutex_lock(&net_todo_run_mutex);
> -
> -	/* Not safe to do outside the semaphore.  We must not return
> -	 * until all unregister events invoked by the local processor
> -	 * have been completed (either by this todo run, or one on
> -	 * another cpu).
> -	 */
> -	if (list_empty(&net_todo_list))
> -		goto out;
> -
>  	/* Snapshot list, allow later requests */
> -	spin_lock(&net_todo_list_lock);
>  	list_replace_init(&net_todo_list, &list);
> -	spin_unlock(&net_todo_list_lock);
> +
> +	__rtnl_unlock();
>  
>  	while (!list_empty(&list)) {
>  		struct net_device *dev
> @@ -4200,9 +4188,6 @@ void netdev_run_todo(void)
>  		/* Free network device */
>  		kobject_put(&dev->dev.kobj);
>  	}
> -
> -out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&net_todo_run_mutex);
>  }
>  
>  static struct net_device_stats *internal_stats(struct net_device *dev)
> diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> index 71edb8b..d6381c2 100644
> --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ void __rtnl_unlock(void)
>  
>  void rtnl_unlock(void)
>  {
> -	mutex_unlock(&rtnl_mutex);
> +	/* This fellow will unlock it for us. */
>  	netdev_run_todo();
>  }
>  
> Cheers,


-- 
B e n j a m i n   T h e r y  - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D

    http://www.bull.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists