netdev - Re: Soft lockup issue in Linux 4.1.9

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:43:22 +0200
From:	Holger Hoffstätte 
	<holger.hoffstaette@...glemail.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Soft lockup issue in Linux 4.1.9

On 10/01/15 13:29, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Holger Hoffstätte
> <holger.hoffstaette@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 06:41:46 +0200, Andre Tomt wrote:
>>
>>> On 01. okt. 2015 00:37, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:59:43 +0200, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> for information, I've just upgraded 6 servers from Linux 4.1.8 to Linux
>>>>> 4.1.9, and have some random soft lockup. If this can help :
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations! You're not the first one to get hit by this, but
>>>> you are probably the first one to get a meaningful stacktrace! \o/
>>>>
>>>>> [  204.478380] Call Trace:
>>>>> [  204.478381]  <IRQ>
>>>>> [  204.478385]  [<ffffffff81076121>] ? try_to_del_timer_sync+0x43/0x4d
>>>>> [  204.478386]  [<ffffffff810760de>] ? del_timer+0x4d/0x4d
>>>>> [  204.478388]  [<ffffffff8107614b>] ? del_timer_sync+0x20/0x3d
>>>>
>>>> Can you try to revert
>>>>
>>>>     [PATCH 4.1 157/159] inet: fix races with reqsk timers
>>>>
>>>> and see how that works for you? I'll do the same on my end. So far the
>>>> only thing I ever could gleam was an rcu stall after cpuidle_enter(),
>>>> but never anything regarding the timer - though it was definitely
>>>> related to NIC activity after idle.
>>>
>>> I'm running with this patch reverted now as well. 2 hours no issues so
>>> far, but I can't conclude anything yet as I've seen it take up to 6+
>>> hours to explode here. As a result the bisect was going veeery slowly.
>>
>> Now 12+ hours going without problems, never got this far with the patch
>> included, as it would usually freeze during idle periods.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned this is the culprit and should be reverted in
>> 4.1.x, unless Eric can suggest how to fix this. (cc'ed).
>>
> 
> Looks an old and known problem...
> 
> Following commit should be sent/added for 4.1 stable tree :
> 
> commit 83fccfc3940c4a2db90fd7e7079f5b465cd8c6af
> Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Date:   Thu Aug 13 15:44:51 2015 -0700
> 
>     inet: fix potential deadlock in reqsk_queue_unlink()
> 
>     When replacing del_timer() with del_timer_sync(), I introduced
>     a deadlock condition :
> 
>     reqsk_queue_unlink() is called from inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop()
> 
>     inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop() can be called from many contexts,
>     one being the timer handler itself (reqsk_timer_handler()).
> 
>     In this case, del_timer_sync() loops forever.
> 
>     Simple fix is to test if timer is pending.
> 
>     Fixes: 2235f2ac75fd ("inet: fix races with reqsk timers")
>     Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>

Whohoo! It applies/builds cleanly to 4.1.10-rc1 and is running as
we speak. Let's hope that this fixes the lockups.

Thanks for the quick reply!

Holger

--
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