netdev - Re: [PATCH net -v2] [BUGFIX] bonding: use flush_delayed_work_sync in bond

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: <14766.1319245142@death>
Date:	Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:59:02 -0700
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
cc:	=?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FQ=3FAm=3DC3=3DA9rico=5FWang=3F=3D?= 
	<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net -v2] [BUGFIX] bonding: use flush_delayed_work_sync in bond_close

Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:

>Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:01:02 -0700
>>>>Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >The bond_close() calls cancel_delayed_work() to cancel delayed works.
>>>>> >It, however, cannot cancel works that were already queued in workqueue.
>>>>> >The bond_open() initializes work->data, and proccess_one_work() refers
>>>>> >get_work_cwq(work)->wq->flags. The get_work_cwq() returns NULL when
>>>>> >work->data has been initialized. Thus, a panic occurs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >This patch uses flush_delayed_work_sync() instead of cancel_delayed_work()
>>>>> >in bond_close(). It cancels delayed timer and waits for work to finish
>>>>> >execution. So, it can avoid the null pointer dereference due to the
>>>>> >parallel executions of proccess_one_work() and initializing proccess
>>>>> >of bond_open().
>>>>>
>>>>>      I'm setting up to test this.  I have a dim recollection that we
>>>>> tried this some years ago, and there was a different deadlock that
>>>>> manifested through the flush path.  Perhaps changes since then have
>>>>> removed that problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>      -J
>>>>
>>>>Won't this deadlock on RTNL.  The problem is that:
>>>>
>>>>   CPU0                            CPU1
>>>>  rtnl_lock
>>>>      bond_close
>>>>                                 delayed_work
>>>>                                   mii_work
>>>>                                     read_lock(bond->lock);
>>>>                                     read_unlock(bond->lock);
>>>>                                     rtnl_lock... waiting for CPU0
>>>>      flush_delayed_work_sync
>>>>          waiting for delayed_work to finish...
>>>
>>>        Yah, that was it.  We discussed this a couple of years ago in
>>> regards to a similar patch:
>>>
>>> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/12/17/3
>>>
>>>        The short version is that we could rework the rtnl_lock inside
>>> the montiors to be conditional and retry on failure (where "retry" means
>>> "reschedule the work and try again later," not "spin retrying on rtnl").
>>> That should permit the use of flush or cancel to terminate the work
>>> items.
>>
>>Yes? Even if we use rtnl_trylock(), doesn't flush_delayed_work_sync()
>>still queue the pending delayed work and wait for it to be finished?
>
>	Yes, it does.  The original patch wants to use flush instead of
>cancel to wait for the work to finish, because there's evidently a
>possibility of getting back into bond_open before the work item
>executes, and bond_open would reinitialize the work queue and corrupt
>the queued work item.
>
>	The original patch series, and recipe for destruction, is here:
>
>	http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg176382.html
>
>	I've been unable to reproduce the work queue panic locally,
>although it sounds plausible.
>
>	Mitsuo: can you provide the precise bonding configuration you're
>using to induce the problem?  Driver options, number and type of slaves,
>etc.
>
>>Maybe I am too blind, why do we need rtnl_lock for cancel_delayed_work()
>>inside bond_close()?
>
>	We don't need RTNL for cancel/flush.  However, bond_close is an
>ndo_stop operation, and is called in the dev_close path, which always
>occurs under RTNL.  The mii / arp monitor work functions separately
>acquire RTNL if they need to perform various failover related
>operations.
>
>	I'm working on a patch that should resolve the mii / arp monitor
>RTNL problem as I described above (if rtnl_trylock fails, punt and
>reschedule the work).  I need to rearrange the netdev_bonding_change
>stuff a bit as well, since it acquires RTNL separately.
>
>	Once these changes are made to mii / arp monitor, then
>bond_close can call flush instead of cancel, which should eliminate the
>original problem described at the top.

	Just an update: there are three functions that may deadlock if
the cancel work calls are changed to flush_sync.  There are two
rtnl_lock calls in each of the bond_mii_monitor and
bond_activebackup_arp_mon functions, and one more in the
bond_alb_monitor.

	Still testing to make sure I haven't missed anything, and I
still haven't been able to reproduce Mitsuo's original failure.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.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