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  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:   Tue, 5 May 2020 19:24:18 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Inconsistent lock state in virtnet poll



On 5/5/20 6:25 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:19:09PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/5/20 5:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:40:09PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/5/20 3:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:08:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following lockdep splat happens reproducibly on 5.7-rc4
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ================================
>>>>>>> WARNING: inconsistent lock state
>>>>>>> 5.7.0-rc4+ #79 Not tainted
>>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>>> inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
>>>>>>> ip/356 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
>>>>>>> f3ee4cd8 (&syncp->seq#2){+.?.}-{0:0}, at: net_rx_action+0xfb/0x390
>>>>>>> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>>>>>>>   lock_acquire+0x82/0x300
>>>>>>>   try_fill_recv+0x39f/0x590
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Weird. Where does try_fill_recv acquire any locks?
>>>>>
>>>>>   u64_stats_update_begin(&rq->stats.syncp);
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a 32bit kernel which uses a seqcount for this. sequence counts
>>>>> are "lock" constructs where you need to make sure that writers are
>>>>> serialized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the problem at hand is that try_fill_recv() is called from
>>>>> fully preemptible context initialy and then from softirq context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously that's for the open() path a non issue, but lockdep does not
>>>>> know about that. OTOH, there is other code which calls that from
>>>>> non-softirq context.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hack below made it shut up. It's obvioulsy not ideal, but at least
>>>>> it let me look at the actual problem I was chasing down :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>         tglx
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<-----------
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>>>>> @@ -1243,9 +1243,11 @@ static bool try_fill_recv(struct virtnet
>>>>>  			break;
>>>>>  	} while (rq->vq->num_free);
>>>>>  	if (virtqueue_kick_prepare(rq->vq) && virtqueue_notify(rq->vq)) {
>>>>> +		local_bh_disable();
>>>>
>>>> Or use u64_stats_update_begin_irqsave() whic is a NOP on 64bit kernels
>>>
>>> I applied this, but am still trying to think of something that
>>> is 0 overhead for all configs.
>>> Maybe we can select a lockdep class depending on whether napi
>>> is enabled?
>>
>>
>> Do you _really_ need 64bit counter for stats.kicks on 32bit kernels ?
>>
>> Adding 64bit counters just because we can might be overhead anyway.
> 
> Well 32 bit kernels don't fundamentally kick less than 64 bit ones,
> and we kick more or less per packet, sometimes per batch,
> people expect these to be in sync ..

Well, we left many counters in networking stack as 'unsigned long'
and nobody complained yet of overflows on 32bit kernels.

SNMP agents are used to the fact that counters do overflow.

Problems might happen if the overflows happen too fast, say every 10 seconds,
but other than that, forcing 64bit counters for something which is not
_required_ for the data path is adding pain.

I am mentioning this, because trying to add lockdep stuff and associated
maintenance cost for 32bit kernels in 2020 makes little sense to me,
considering I added include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h 10 years ago.






Powered by blists - more mailing lists