netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:41:08 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning



On 11/21/19 2:17 AM, Anders Roxell wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 08:15, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 18:45, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/20/19 7:22 AM, Anders Roxell wrote:
> 
> [snippet]
> 
>>>> +     rtnl_lock();
>>>>       err = ipmr_rules_init(net);
>>>> +     rtnl_unlock();
>>>>       if (err < 0)
>>>>               goto ipmr_rules_fail;
>>>
>>> Hmmm... this might have performance impact for creation of a new netns
>>>
>>> Since the 'struct net' is not yet fully initialized (thus published/visible),
>>> should we really have to grab RTNL (again) only to silence a warning ?
>>>
>>> What about the following alternative ?
>>
>> I tried what you suggested, unfortunately, I still got the warning.
> 
> I was wrong, so if I also add "lockdep_rtnl_is_held()" to the
> "ipmr_for_each_table()" macro it works.
> 
>>
>>
>> [   43.253850][    T1] =============================
>> [   43.255473][    T1] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
>> [   43.259068][    T1]
>> 5.4.0-rc8-next-20191120-00003-g3aa7c2a8649e-dirty #6 Not tainted
>> [   43.263078][    T1] -----------------------------
>> [   43.265134][    T1] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:1759 RCU-list traversed in
>> non-reader section!!
>> [   43.267587][    T1]
>> [   43.267587][    T1] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [   43.267587][    T1]
>> [   43.271129][    T1]
>> [   43.271129][    T1] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
>> [   43.274021][    T1] 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
>> [   43.275532][    T1]  #0: ffff000065abeaa0 (&dev->mutex){....}, at:
>> __device_driver_lock+0xa0/0xb0
>> [   43.278930][    T1]  #1: ffffa000153017f0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}, at:
>> rtnl_lock+0x1c/0x28
>> [   43.282023][    T1]
>> [   43.282023][    T1] stack backtrace:
>> [   43.283921][    T1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
>> 5.4.0-rc8-next-20191120-00003-g3aa7c2a8649e-dirty #6
>> [   43.287152][    T1] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>> [   43.288920][    T1] Call trace:
>> [   43.290057][    T1]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0
>> [   43.291535][    T1]  show_stack+0x20/0x30
>> [   43.292967][    T1]  dump_stack+0x204/0x2ac
>> [   43.294423][    T1]  lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xf4/0x108
>> [   43.296163][    T1]  ipmr_device_event+0x100/0x1e8
>> [   43.297812][    T1]  notifier_call_chain+0x100/0x1a8
>> [   43.299486][    T1]  raw_notifier_call_chain+0x38/0x48
>> [   43.301248][    T1]  call_netdevice_notifiers_info+0x128/0x148
>> [   43.303158][    T1]  rollback_registered_many+0x684/0xb48
>> [   43.304963][    T1]  rollback_registered+0xd8/0x150
>> [   43.306595][    T1]  unregister_netdevice_queue+0x194/0x1b8
>> [   43.308406][    T1]  unregister_netdev+0x24/0x38
>> [   43.310012][    T1]  virtnet_remove+0x44/0x78
>> [   43.311519][    T1]  virtio_dev_remove+0x5c/0xc0
>> [   43.313114][    T1]  really_probe+0x508/0x920
>> [   43.314635][    T1]  driver_probe_device+0x164/0x230
>> [   43.316337][    T1]  device_driver_attach+0x8c/0xc0
>> [   43.318024][    T1]  __driver_attach+0x1e0/0x1f8
>> [   43.319584][    T1]  bus_for_each_dev+0xf0/0x188
>> [   43.321169][    T1]  driver_attach+0x34/0x40
>> [   43.322645][    T1]  bus_add_driver+0x204/0x3c8
>> [   43.324202][    T1]  driver_register+0x160/0x1f8
>> [   43.325788][    T1]  register_virtio_driver+0x7c/0x88
>> [   43.327480][    T1]  virtio_net_driver_init+0xa8/0xf4
>> [   43.329196][    T1]  do_one_initcall+0x4c0/0xad8
>> [   43.330767][    T1]  kernel_init_freeable+0x3e0/0x500
>> [   43.332444][    T1]  kernel_init+0x14/0x1f0
>> [   43.333901][    T1]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Anders
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
>>> index 6e68def66822f47fc08d94eddd32a4bd4f9fdfb0..b6dcdce08f1d82c83756a319623e24ae0174092c 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
>>> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mfc_unres_lock);
>>>
>>>  static struct kmem_cache *mrt_cachep __ro_after_init;
>>>
>>> -static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id);
>>> +static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id, bool init);
>>>  static void ipmr_free_table(struct mr_table *mrt);
>>>
> 
>  static void ip_mr_forward(struct net *net, struct mr_table *mrt,
> @@ -110,7 +110,8 @@ static void ipmr_expire_process(struct timer_list *t);
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES
>  #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \
> -       list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list)
> +       list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \
> +                               lockdep_rtnl_is_held())
>  static struct mr_table *ipmr_mr_table_iter(struct net *net,
>                                            struct mr_table *mrt)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Anders

That is great, I guess we can submit the two patches in a series.