netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 for-3.9] pci: avoid work_on

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:36:10 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
	Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 for-3.9] pci: avoid work_on_cpu for nested SRIOV probes

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:57:36PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> The following lockdep report triggers since 3.9-rc1:
> >>
> >> =============================================
> >> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> >> 3.9.0-rc1 #96 Not tainted
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> kworker/0:1/734 is trying to acquire lock:
> >>  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81066cb0>] flush_work+0x0/0x250
> >>
> >> but task is already holding lock:
> >>  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
> >> process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
> >>
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >>
> >>        CPU0
> >>        ----
> >>   lock((&wfc.work));
> >>   lock((&wfc.work));
> >>
> >>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>
> >>  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> >>
> >> 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/734:
> >>  #0:  (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
> >> process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
> >>  #1:  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
> >> process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
> >>  #2:  (&__lockdep_no_validate__){......}, at: [<ffffffff812db225>]
> >> device_attach+0x25/0xb0
> >>
> >> stack backtrace:
> >> Pid: 734, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc1 #96
> >> Call Trace:
> >>  [<ffffffff810948ec>] validate_chain+0xdcc/0x11f0
> >>  [<ffffffff81095150>] __lock_acquire+0x440/0xc70
> >>  [<ffffffff81095150>] ? __lock_acquire+0x440/0xc70
> >>  [<ffffffff810959da>] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x70
> >>  [<ffffffff81066cb0>] ? wq_worker_waking_up+0x60/0x60
> >>  [<ffffffff81066cf5>] flush_work+0x45/0x250
> >>  [<ffffffff81066cb0>] ? wq_worker_waking_up+0x60/0x60
> >>  [<ffffffff810922be>] ? mark_held_locks+0x9e/0x130
> >>  [<ffffffff81066a96>] ? queue_work_on+0x46/0x90
> >>  [<ffffffff810925dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfd/0x190
> >>  [<ffffffff8109267d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> >>  [<ffffffff81066f74>] work_on_cpu+0x74/0x90
> >>  [<ffffffff81063820>] ? keventd_up+0x20/0x20
> >>  [<ffffffff8121fd30>] ? pci_pm_prepare+0x60/0x60
> >>  [<ffffffff811f9293>] ? cpumask_next_and+0x23/0x40
> >>  [<ffffffff81220a1a>] pci_device_probe+0xba/0x110
> >>  [<ffffffff812dadca>] ? driver_sysfs_add+0x7a/0xb0
> >>  [<ffffffff812daf1f>] driver_probe_device+0x8f/0x230
> >>  [<ffffffff812db170>] ? __driver_attach+0xb0/0xb0
> >>  [<ffffffff812db1bb>] __device_attach+0x4b/0x60
> >>  [<ffffffff812d9314>] bus_for_each_drv+0x64/0x90
> >>  [<ffffffff812db298>] device_attach+0x98/0xb0
> >>  [<ffffffff81218474>] pci_bus_add_device+0x24/0x50
> >>  [<ffffffff81232e80>] virtfn_add+0x240/0x3e0
> >>  [<ffffffff8146ce3d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80
> >>  [<ffffffff812333be>] pci_enable_sriov+0x23e/0x500
> >>  [<ffffffffa011fa1a>] __mlx4_init_one+0x5da/0xce0 [mlx4_core]
> >>  [<ffffffffa012016d>] mlx4_init_one+0x2d/0x60 [mlx4_core]
> >>  [<ffffffff8121fd79>] local_pci_probe+0x49/0x80
> >>  [<ffffffff81063833>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x13/0x20
> >>  [<ffffffff810643b8>] process_one_work+0x1c8/0x4c0
> >>  [<ffffffff81064352>] ? process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
> >>  [<ffffffff81064cfb>] worker_thread+0x30b/0x430
> >>  [<ffffffff810649f0>] ? manage_workers+0x340/0x340
> >>  [<ffffffff8106cea6>] kthread+0xd6/0xe0
> >>  [<ffffffff8106cdd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
> >>  [<ffffffff8146daac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> >>  [<ffffffff8106cdd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
> >>
> >> The issue is that a driver, in it's probe function, calls
> >> pci_sriov_enable so a PF device probe causes VF probe (AKA nested
> >> probe).  Each probe in pci_device_probe which is (normally) run through
> >> work_on_cpu (this is to get the right numa node for memory allocated by
> >> the driver).  In turn work_on_cpu does this internally:
> >>
> >>         schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
> >>         flush_work(&wfc.work);
> >>
> >> So if you are running probe on CPU1, and cause another
> >> probe on the same CPU, this will try to flush
> >> workqueue from inside same workqueue which causes
> >> a lockep warning.
> >>
> >> Nested probing might be tricky to get right generally.
> >>
> >> But for pci_sriov_enable, the situation is actually very simple: all VFs
> >> naturally have same affinity as the PF, and cpumask_any_and is actually
> >> same as cpumask_first_and, so it always gives us the same CPU.
> >> So let's just detect that, and run the probing for VFs locally without a
> >> workqueue.
> >>
> >> This is hardly elegant, but looks to me like an appropriate quick fix
> >> for 3.9.
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> >> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> >
> > Thanks, Michael.  I put this in my for-linus branch:
> >
> > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/log/?h=for-linus
> >
> > I'll send a pull request to Linus today.
> 
> Actually, let me make sure I understand this correctly:  This patch
> fixes the lockdep warning, but it does not fix an actual deadlock or
> make any functional change.  Is that right?

Tejun said that this warning is a false positive, so yes.

> If that's true, how much pain would it cause to just hold this for
> v3.9.1?  I'm nervous about doing a warning fix when we're only a day
> or two before releasing v3.9.
> 
> Bjorn

I don't have this hardware, so I don't know. It was apparently reported
by real users ...

> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes from v1:
> >>     - clarified commit log and added Ack by Tejun Heo
> >>       patch is unchanged.
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> >> index 1fa1e48..6eeb5ec 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> >> @@ -286,8 +286,8 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
> >>                 int cpu;
> >>
> >>                 get_online_cpus();
> >>                 cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask);
> >> -               if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> >> +               if (cpu != raw_smp_processor_id() && cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> >>                         error = work_on_cpu(cpu, local_pci_probe, &ddi);
> >>                 else
> >>                         error = local_pci_probe(&ddi);
--
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