netdev - Re: BUG cxgb3: Check and handle the dma mapping errors

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]

Message-ID: <52099D12.1020605@ozlabs.ru>
Date:	Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:42:26 +1000
From:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:	Divy Le ray <divy@...lsio.com>
CC:	Jay Fenlason <fenlason@...hat.com>,
	Santosh Rastapur <santosh@...lsio.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG cxgb3: Check and handle the dma mapping errors

Ping, anyone?


On 08/08/2013 03:38 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 02:55 AM, Divy Le ray wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 11:41 AM, Jay Fenlason wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 12:59:04PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Recently I started getting multiple errors like this:
>>>>
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> cxgb3 0006:01:00.0: iommu_alloc failed, tbl c000000003067980 vaddr
>>>> c000001fbdaaa882 npages 1
>>>> ... and so on
>>>>
>>>> This is all happening on a PPC64 "powernv" platform machine. To trigger the
>>>> error state, it is enough to _flood_ ping CXGB3 card from another machine
>>>> (which has Emulex 10Gb NIC + Cisco switch). Just do "ping -f 172.20.1.2"
>>>> and wait 10-15 seconds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The messages are coming from arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c and basically
>>>> mean that the driver requested more pages than the DMA window has which is
>>>> normally 1GB (there could be another possible source of errors -
>>>> ppc_md.tce_build callback - but on powernv platform it always succeeds).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The patch after which it broke is:
>>>> commit f83331bab149e29fa2c49cf102c0cd8c3f1ce9f9
>>>> Author: Santosh Rastapur <santosh@...lsio.com>
>>>> Date:   Tue May 21 04:21:29 2013 +0000
>>>> cxgb3: Check and handle the dma mapping errors
>>>>
>>>> Any quick ideas? Thanks!
>>> That patch adds error checking to detect failed dma mapping requests.
>>> Before it, the code always assumed that dma mapping requests succeded,
>>> whether they actually do or not, so the fact that the older kernel
>>> does not log errors only means that the failures are being ignored,
>>> and any appearance of working is through pure luck.  The machine could
>>> have just crashed at that point.
>>>
>>> What is the observed behavior of the system by the machine initiating
>>> the ping flood?  Do the older and newer kernels differ in the
>>> percentage of pings that do not receive replies?  O the newer kernel,
>>> when the mapping errors are detected, the packet that it is trying to
>>> transmit is dropped, but I'm not at all sure what happens on the older
>>> kernel after the dma mapping fails.  As I mentioned earlier, I'm
>>> surprised it does not crash.  Perhaps the folks from Chelsio have a
>>> better idea what happens after a dma mapping error is ignored?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It should definitely not be ignored. It should not happen this reliably
>> either.
>> I wonder if we are not hitting a leak of iommu entries.
> 
> Yes we do. I did some more tests with socklib from here
> http://junkcode.samba.org/ftp/unpacked/junkcode/socklib/
> 
> The test is basically sock_source sending packets to sock_sink. If block
> size is >=512 bytes, there is no leak, if I set packet size to <=256 bytes,
> it starts leaking, smaller block size means faster leak. The type of the
> other adapter does not really matter, can be the same Emulex adapter.
> 
> I am attaching a small patch which I made in order to detect the leak.
> Without the patch, no leak happens, I double checked.
> 
> 


-- 
Alexey
--
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