[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180322.144134.17715767505857944.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:41:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ktkhai@...tuozzo.com
Cc: yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
yotamg@...lanox.com, soheil@...gle.com, avagin@...tuozzo.com,
nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, fw@...len.de,
roman.kapl@...go.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
andreyknvl@...gle.com, lkp@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/5] net: Revert "ipv4: fix a deadlock in
ip_ra_control"
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:25:35 +0300
> On 20.03.2018 19:23, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:54 +0300
>>
>>> This reverts commit 1215e51edad1.
>>> Since raw_close() is used on every RAW socket destruction,
>>> the changes made by 1215e51edad1 scale sadly. This clearly
>>> seen on endless unshare(CLONE_NEWNET) test, and cleanup_net()
>>> kwork spends a lot of time waiting for rtnl_lock() introduced
>>> by this commit.
>>>
>>> Next patches in series will rework this in another way,
>>> so now we revert 1215e51edad1. Also, it doesn't seen
>>> mrtsock_destruct() takes sk_lock, and the comment to the commit
>>> does not show the actual stack dump. So, there is a question
>>> did we really need in it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
>>
>> Kirill, I think the commit you are reverting is legitimate.
>>
>> The IP_RAW_CONTROL path has an ABBA deadlock with other paths once
>> you revert this, so you are reintroducing a bug.
>
> The talk is about IP_ROUTER_ALERT, I assume there is just an erratum.
My bad, I did indeed mean IP_ROUTER_ALERT.
>> All code paths that must take both RTNL and the socket lock must
>> do them in the same order. And that order is RTNL then socket
>> lock.
>
> The place I change in this patch is IP_ROUTER_ALERT. There is only
> a call of ip_ra_control(), while this function does not need socket
> lock. Please, see next patch. It moves this ip_ra_control() out
> of socket lock. And it fixes the problem pointed in reverted patch
> in another way. So, if there is ABBA, after next patch it becomes
> solved. Does this mean I have to merge [2/5] and [3/5] together?
Yes, that is what should happen, because the revert by itself
reintroduces the potential ABBA deadlock between the socket lock
and the RTNL mutex.
I'll take a look at the new version of your series.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists