Message-ID: <CAMArcTU-KYEF0ivaiBfkRQMt323fbNqfRCvHW7D8b7M3qVukhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 17 May 2020 21:53:33 +0900
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+aaa6fa4949cc5d9b7b25@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v2 1/2] net: partially revert dynamic lockdep key changes

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 01:53, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
>

Hi Vladimir,


> Hi Taehee,
>
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 18:22, Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 00:56, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Cong, Taehee,
> > >
> >
> > Hi Vladimir!
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > I have a platform with the following layout:
> > >
> > >       Regular NIC
> > >        |
> > >        +----> DSA master for switch port
> > >                |
> > >                +----> DSA master for another switch port
> > >
> > > After changing DSA back to static lockdep class keys, I get this splat:
> > >
> > > [   13.361198] ============================================
> > > [   13.366524] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > > [   13.371851] 5.7.0-rc4-02121-gc32a05ecd7af-dirty #988 Not tainted
> > > [   13.377874] --------------------------------------------
> > > [   13.383201] swapper/0/0 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [   13.388004] ffff0000668ff298
> > > (&dsa_slave_netdev_xmit_lock_key){+.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> > > __dev_queue_xmit+0x84c/0xbe0
> > > [   13.397879]
> > > [   13.397879] but task is already holding lock:
> > > [   13.403727] ffff0000661a1698
> > > (&dsa_slave_netdev_xmit_lock_key){+.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> > > __dev_queue_xmit+0x84c/0xbe0
> > > [   13.413593]
> > > [   13.413593] other info that might help us debug this:
> > > [   13.420140]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > > [   13.420140]
> > > [   13.426075]        CPU0
> > > [   13.428523]        ----
> > > [   13.430969]   lock(&dsa_slave_netdev_xmit_lock_key);
> > > [   13.435946]   lock(&dsa_slave_netdev_xmit_lock_key);
> > > [   13.440924]
> > > [   13.440924]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > > [   13.440924]
> > > [   13.446860]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > > [   13.446860]
> > > [   13.453668] 6 locks held by swapper/0/0:
> > > [   13.457598]  #0: ffff800010003de0
> > > ((&idev->mc_ifc_timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x0/0x400
> > > [   13.466593]  #1: ffffd4d3fb478700 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
> > > mld_sendpack+0x0/0x560
> > > [   13.474803]  #2: ffffd4d3fb478728 (rcu_read_lock_bh){....}-{1:2},
> > > at: ip6_finish_output2+0x64/0xb10
> > > [   13.483886]  #3: ffffd4d3fb478728 (rcu_read_lock_bh){....}-{1:2},
> > > at: __dev_queue_xmit+0x6c/0xbe0
> > > [   13.492793]  #4: ffff0000661a1698
> > > (&dsa_slave_netdev_xmit_lock_key){+.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> > > __dev_queue_xmit+0x84c/0xbe0
> > > [   13.503094]  #5: ffffd4d3fb478728 (rcu_read_lock_bh){....}-{1:2},
> > > at: __dev_queue_xmit+0x6c/0xbe0
> > > [   13.512000]
> > > [   13.512000] stack backtrace:
> > > [   13.516369] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
> > > 5.7.0-rc4-02121-gc32a05ecd7af-dirty #988
> > > [   13.530421] Call trace:
> > > [   13.532871]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1d8
> > > [   13.536539]  show_stack+0x24/0x30
> > > [   13.539862]  dump_stack+0xe8/0x150
> > > [   13.543271]  __lock_acquire+0x1030/0x1678
> > > [   13.547290]  lock_acquire+0xf8/0x458
> > > [   13.550873]  _raw_spin_lock+0x44/0x58
> > > [   13.554543]  __dev_queue_xmit+0x84c/0xbe0
> > > [   13.558562]  dev_queue_xmit+0x24/0x30
> > > [   13.562232]  dsa_slave_xmit+0xe0/0x128
> > > [   13.565988]  dev_hard_start_xmit+0xf4/0x448
> > > [   13.570182]  __dev_queue_xmit+0x808/0xbe0
> > > [   13.574200]  dev_queue_xmit+0x24/0x30
> > > [   13.577869]  neigh_resolve_output+0x15c/0x220
> > > [   13.582237]  ip6_finish_output2+0x244/0xb10
> > > [   13.586430]  __ip6_finish_output+0x1dc/0x298
> > > [   13.590709]  ip6_output+0x84/0x358
> > > [   13.594116]  mld_sendpack+0x2bc/0x560
> > > [   13.597786]  mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x210/0x390
> > > [   13.602153]  call_timer_fn+0xcc/0x400
> > > [   13.605822]  run_timer_softirq+0x588/0x6e0
> > > [   13.609927]  __do_softirq+0x118/0x590
> > > [   13.613597]  irq_exit+0x13c/0x148
> > > [   13.616918]  __handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0xc0
> > > [   13.621023]  gic_handle_irq+0x6c/0x160
> > > [   13.624779]  el1_irq+0xbc/0x180
> > > [   13.627927]  cpuidle_enter_state+0xb4/0x4d0
> > > [   13.632120]  cpuidle_enter+0x3c/0x50
> > > [   13.635703]  call_cpuidle+0x44/0x78
> > > [   13.639199]  do_idle+0x228/0x2c8
> > > [   13.642433]  cpu_startup_entry+0x2c/0x48
> > > [   13.646363]  rest_init+0x1ac/0x280
> > > [   13.649773]  arch_call_rest_init+0x14/0x1c
> > > [   13.653878]  start_kernel+0x490/0x4bc
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I can't really test DSA behavior prior to patch
> > > ab92d68fc22f ("net: core: add generic lockdep keys"), because in
> > > October, some of these DSA drivers were not in mainline.
> > > Also I don't really have a clear idea of how nesting should be
> > > signalled to lockdep.
> > > Do you have any suggestion what might be wrong?
> > >
> >
> > This patch was considered that all stackable devices have LLTX flag.
> > But the dsa doesn't have LLTX, so this splat happened.
> > After this patch, dsa shares the same lockdep class key.
> > On the nested dsa interface architecture, which you illustrated,
> > the same lockdep class key will be used in __dev_queue_xmit() because
> > dsa doesn't have LLTX.
> > So that lockdep detects deadlock because the same lockdep class key is
> > used recursively although actually the different locks are used.
> > There are some ways to fix this problem.
> >
> > 1. using NETIF_F_LLTX flag.
> > If possible, using the LLTX flag is a very clear way for it.
> > But I'm so sorry I don't know whether the dsa could have LLTX or not.
> >
> > 2. using dynamic lockdep again.
> > It means that each interface uses a separate lockdep class key.
> > So, lockdep will not detect recursive locking.
> > But this way has a problem that it could consume lockdep class key
> > too many.
> > Currently, lockdep can have 8192 lockdep class keys.
> >  - you can see this number with the following command.
> >    cat /proc/lockdep_stats
> >    lock-classes:                         1251 [max: 8192]
> >    ...
> >    The [max: 8192] means that the maximum number of lockdep class keys.
> > If too many lockdep class keys are registered, lockdep stops to work.
> > So, using a dynamic(separated) lockdep class key should be considered
> > carefully.
> > In addition, updating lockdep class key routine might have to be existing.
> > (lockdep_register_key(), lockdep_set_class(), lockdep_unregister_key())
> >
> > 3. Using lockdep subclass.
> > A lockdep class key could have 8 subclasses.
> > The different subclass is considered different locks by lockdep
> > infrastructure.
> > But "lock-classes" is not counted by subclasses.
> > So, it could avoid stopping lockdep infrastructure by an overflow of
> > lockdep class keys.
> > This approach should also have an updating lockdep class key routine.
> > (lockdep_set_subclass())
> >
> > 4. Using nonvalidate lockdep class key.
> > The lockdep infrastructure supports nonvalidate lockdep class key type.
> > It means this lockdep is not validated by lockdep infrastructure.
> > So, the splat will not happend but lockdep couldn't detect real deadlock
> > case because lockdep really doesn't validate it.
> > I think this should be used for really special cases.
> > (lockdep_set_novalidate_class())
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Taehee Yoo
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Vladimir
>
> Thanks a lot for presenting the options. In general, xmit in DSA is
> relatively simple and most of the time stateless. My stacked DSA setup
> appears to work just fine with NETIF_F_LLTX, including the updating of
> percpu counters. I'm not really sure if there's something in
> particular to test?
> Anyway, will you send a patch with NETIF_F_LLTX or should I do it? I
> can do further testing if necessary.
>

Please send a patch for it.
I think a simple ping test on a nested interface graph is enough.

Thanks a lot!
Taehee Yoo

> Regards,
> -Vladimir

Powered by blists - more mailing lists