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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 16 Feb 2019 13:35:56 +0800
From:   Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>, <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bonding: use mutex lock in bond_get_stats()



On 2019/2/15 21:57, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:37 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> With CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=y, we find following stack,
>>
>>  BUG: spinlock wrong CPU on CPU#0, ip/16047
>>   lock: 0xffff803f5febc998, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: ip/16047, .owner_cpu: 0
>>  CPU: 1 PID: 16047 Comm: ip Kdump: loaded Tainted: G            E 4.19.12.aarch64 #1
>>  Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 V2/BC82AMDA, BIOS TA BIOS TaiShan 2280 V2 - B900 01/29/2019
>>  Call trace:
>>   dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1c0
>>   show_stack+0x24/0x30
>>   dump_stack+0x90/0xbc
>>   spin_dump+0x84/0xa8
>>   do_raw_spin_unlock+0xf8/0x100
>>   _raw_spin_unlock+0x20/0x30
>>   bond_get_stats+0x110/0x140 [bonding]
>>   rtnl_fill_stats+0x50/0x150
>>   rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x4d4/0xd18
>>   rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0x200/0x3a8
>>   netlink_dump+0x100/0x2b0
>>   netlink_recvmsg+0x310/0x3e8
>>   sock_recvmsg+0x58/0x68
>>   ___sys_recvmsg+0xd0/0x278
>>   __sys_recvmsg+0x74/0xd0
>>   __arm64_sys_recvmsg+0x2c/0x38
>>   el0_svc_common+0x7c/0x118
>>   el0_svc_handler+0x30/0x40
>>   el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>>
>> and then lead to softlockup issue, fix this by using mutex lock instead
>> of spin lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Not sure if this is right fix, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
> 
> Make sure to also try :
> 
> cat /proc/net/dev

Yes, no regression with this patch in our test or 'cat /proc/net/dev'

> 
> .
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists