[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <542B5096.2040106@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:53:42 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] net_sched: avoid calling tcf_unbind_filter()
in call_rcu callback
On 09/30/2014 04:07 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> This fixes the following crash:
>
> [ 63.976822] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> [ 63.980094] CPU: 1 PID: 15 Comm: ksoftirqd/1 Not tainted 3.17.0-rc6+ #648
> [ 63.980094] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> [ 63.980094] task: ffff880117dea690 ti: ffff880117dfc000 task.ti: ffff880117dfc000
> [ 63.980094] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff817e6d07>] [<ffffffff817e6d07>] u32_destroy_key+0x27/0x6d
> [ 63.980094] RSP: 0018:ffff880117dffcc0 EFLAGS: 00010202
> [ 63.980094] RAX: ffff880117dea690 RBX: ffff8800d02e0820 RCX: 0000000000000000
> [ 63.980094] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: 6b6b6b6b6b6b6b6b
> [ 63.980094] RBP: ffff880117dffcd0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> [ 63.980094] R10: 00006c0900006ba8 R11: 00006ba100006b9d R12: 0000000000000001
> [ 63.980094] R13: ffff8800d02e0898 R14: ffffffff817e6d4d R15: ffff880117387a30
> [ 63.980094] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88011a800000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 63.980094] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> [ 63.980094] CR2: 00007f07e6732fed CR3: 000000011665b000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> [ 63.980094] Stack:
> [ 63.980094] ffff88011a9cd300 ffffffff82051ac0 ffff880117dffce0 ffffffff817e6d68
> [ 63.980094] ffff880117dffd70 ffffffff810cb4c7 ffffffff810cb3cd ffff880117dfffd8
> [ 63.980094] ffff880117dea690 ffff880117dea690 ffff880117dfffd8 000000000000000a
> [ 63.980094] Call Trace:
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff817e6d68>] u32_delete_key_freepf_rcu+0x1b/0x1d
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff810cb4c7>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x3bb/0x691
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff810cb3cd>] ? rcu_process_callbacks+0x2c1/0x691
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff817e6d4d>] ? u32_destroy_key+0x6d/0x6d
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff810780a4>] __do_softirq+0x142/0x323
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff810782a8>] run_ksoftirqd+0x23/0x53
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff81092126>] smpboot_thread_fn+0x203/0x221
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff81091f23>] ? smpboot_unpark_thread+0x33/0x33
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff8108e44d>] kthread+0xc9/0xd1
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff819e00ea>] ? do_wait_for_common+0xf8/0x125
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff8108e384>] ? __kthread_parkme+0x61/0x61
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff819e43ec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [ 63.980094] [<ffffffff8108e384>] ? __kthread_parkme+0x61/0x61
>
> tp could be freed in call_rcu callback too, the order is not guaranteed.
>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> ---
Thanks for catching this. What if we just drop tcf_exts_result
I can't see how its being used anymore. It appears to just be passed
around the ./net/sched files for some historic reason that is lost on
me. Would you mind testing a patch if I sent it out?
Maybe Jamal can shed some light?
> include/net/pkt_cls.h | 6 +-----
> net/sched/cls_u32.c | 10 ++++++----
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> index 73f9532..ef44ad9 100644
> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> @@ -20,11 +20,7 @@ int unregister_tcf_proto_ops(struct tcf_proto_ops *ops);
> static inline unsigned long
> __cls_set_class(unsigned long *clp, unsigned long cl)
> {
> - unsigned long old_cl;
> -
> - old_cl = *clp;
> - *clp = cl;
> - return old_cl;
> + return xchg(clp, cl);
> }
>
> static inline unsigned long
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_u32.c b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
> index 4be3ebf..0472909 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_u32.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
> @@ -358,7 +358,6 @@ static int u32_destroy_key(struct tcf_proto *tp,
> struct tc_u_knode *n,
> bool free_pf)
> {
> - tcf_unbind_filter(tp, &n->res);
> tcf_exts_destroy(&n->exts);
> if (n->ht_down)
> n->ht_down->refcnt--;
> @@ -416,6 +415,7 @@ static int u32_delete_key(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct tc_u_knode *key)
> if (pkp == key) {
> RCU_INIT_POINTER(*kp, key->next);
>
> + tcf_unbind_filter(tp, &key->res);
> call_rcu(&key->rcu, u32_delete_key_freepf_rcu);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ static int u32_delete_key(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct tc_u_knode *key)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void u32_clear_hnode(struct tc_u_hnode *ht)
> +static void u32_clear_hnode(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct tc_u_hnode *ht)
> {
> struct tc_u_knode *n;
> unsigned int h;
> @@ -434,6 +434,7 @@ static void u32_clear_hnode(struct tc_u_hnode *ht)
> while ((n = rtnl_dereference(ht->ht[h])) != NULL) {
> RCU_INIT_POINTER(ht->ht[h],
> rtnl_dereference(n->next));
> + tcf_unbind_filter(tp, &n->res);
> call_rcu(&n->rcu, u32_delete_key_freepf_rcu);
> }
> }
> @@ -447,7 +448,7 @@ static int u32_destroy_hnode(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct tc_u_hnode *ht)
>
> WARN_ON(ht->refcnt);
>
> - u32_clear_hnode(ht);
> + u32_clear_hnode(tp, ht);
>
> hn = &tp_c->hlist;
> for (phn = rtnl_dereference(*hn);
> @@ -482,7 +483,7 @@ static void u32_destroy(struct tcf_proto *tp)
> ht;
> ht = rtnl_dereference(ht->next)) {
> ht->refcnt--;
> - u32_clear_hnode(ht);
> + u32_clear_hnode(tp, ht);
> }
>
> while ((ht = rtnl_dereference(tp_c->hlist)) != NULL) {
> @@ -731,6 +732,7 @@ static int u32_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *in_skb,
> }
>
> u32_replace_knode(tp, tp_c, new);
> + tcf_unbind_filter(tp, &n->res);
> call_rcu(&n->rcu, u32_delete_key_rcu);
> return 0;
> }
>
--
John Fastabend Intel Corporation
--
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