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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <f94a6a49-582e-81ef-f755-8c6fb941488a@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:39:21 +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 2019/2/17 2:18, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:36 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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' >> > You really should have a warning showing up. > > Make sure you have : DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y (I thought this was > automatically selected with LOCKDEP on, maybe not...) > > Please take a look at net/core/net-procfs.c , functions > dev_seq_start(), dev_seq_printf_stats(), dev_seq_show() > > We can not use a mutex in a section protected by rcu_read_lock() ok, thanks for your direction, we will do more research and test. > . >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists