netdev - Re: net: deadlock between ip_expire/sch_direct

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2017 05:43:19 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: deadlock between ip_expire/sch_direct_xmit

On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 10:59 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am confused. Lockdep has observed both of these stacks:
> >>>
> >>>        CPU0                    CPU1
> >>>        ----                    ----
> >>>   lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock);
> >>>                                lock(_xmit_ETHER#2);
> >>>                                lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock);
> >>>   lock(_xmit_ETHER#2);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So it somehow happened. Or what do you mean?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Lockdep said " possible circular locking dependency detected " .
> >> It is not an actual deadlock, but lockdep machinery firing.
> >>
> >> For a dead lock to happen, this would require that he ICMP message
> >> sent by ip_expire() is itself fragmented and reassembled.
> >> This cannot be, because ICMP messages are not candidates for
> >> fragmentation, but lockdep can not know that of course...
> >
> > It doesn't have to be ICMP, as long as get the same hash for
> > the inet_frag_queue, we will need to take the same lock and
> > deadlock will happen.
> >
> >         hash = ipqhashfn(iph->id, iph->saddr, iph->daddr, iph->protocol);
> >
> > So it is really up to this hash function.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the following the same issue?
> It mentions dev->qdisc_tx_busylock, but I am not sure if it's relevant
> if there already a cycle between  _xmit_ETHER#2 -->
> &(&q->lock)->rlock#2.


False positive again.

veth needs to use netdev_lockdep_set_classes(), assuming you use veth ?

I will provide a patch, thanks.

cf515802043cccecfe9ab75065f8fc71e6ec9bab missed a few drivers.