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 22:27:54 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <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>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bonding: use mutex lock in bond_get_stats()

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:19 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.

Why spinlock debugging code complains about this?

It looks like an internal spinlock bug from this stack trace. So,
why do we have to fix it in bonding?

BTW, your kernel warning is tainted, so double check if you
have any out-of-tree modules.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists