[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200326.202714.1221436401038064762.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: cai@....pw
Cc: kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kuba@...nel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4: fix a RCU-list lock in fib_triestat_seq_show
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 18:01:00 -0400
> fib_triestat_seq_show() calls hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(tb, head,
> tb_hlist) without rcu_read_lock() will trigger a warning,
>
> net/ipv4/fib_trie.c:2579 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> 1 lock held by proc01/115277:
> #0: c0000014507acf00 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: seq_read+0x58/0x670
>
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0xf4/0x164 (unreliable)
> lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x140/0x164
> fib_triestat_seq_show+0x750/0x880
> seq_read+0x1a0/0x670
> proc_reg_read+0x10c/0x1b0
> __vfs_read+0x3c/0x70
> vfs_read+0xac/0x170
> ksys_read+0x7c/0x140
> system_call+0x5c/0x68
>
> Fix it by adding a pair of rcu_read_lock/unlock() and use
> cond_resched_rcu() to avoid the situation where walking of a large
> number of items may prevent scheduling for a long time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Eric, please review.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists