[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB7PR04MB4620D6F317369C2237AEDC968BAB0@DB7PR04MB4620.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:30:07 +0000
From: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Help needed - Kernel lockup while running ipsec
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:53 PM
> > To: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>
> > Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Help needed - Kernel lockup while running ipsec
> >
> > Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com> wrote:
> > > > > With kernel 4.14.122, I am getting a kernel softlockup while
> > > > > running single
> > > > static ipsec tunnel.
> > > > > The problem reproduces mostly after running 8-10 hours of ipsec
> > > > > encap
> > > > test (on my dual core arm board).
> > > > >
> > > > > I found that in function xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype(), the policy
> > > > > in variable
> > > > 'ret' shows refcnt=0 under problem situation.
> > > > > This creates an infinite loop in xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype() and
> > > > > hence the
> > > > lockup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can some body please provide me pointers about 'refcnt'?
> > > > > Is it legitimate for 'refcnt' to become '0'? Under what condition
> > > > > can it
> > > > become '0'?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, when policy is destroyed and the last user calls
> > > > xfrm_pol_put() which will invoke call_rcu to free the structure.
> > >
> > > It seems that policy reference count never gets decremented during
> packet
> > ipsec encap.
> > > It is getting incremented for every frame that hits the policy.
> > > In setkey -DP output, I see refcnt to be wrapping around after '0'.
> >
> > Thats a bug. Does this affect 4.14 only or does this happen on current tree
> > as well?
>
> I am yet to try it on 4.19.
Correction: I am yet to try it on current tree.
> Can you help me with the right fix? Which part of code should it get
> decremented?
> I am not conversant with xfrm code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists