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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68f2163e-63a2-c6dd-1491-fd748a92ac36@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 07:52:54 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Amir Tzin <amirtz@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in v5.16-rc1: Timeout in mlx5_health_wait_pci_up() may
 try to wait 245 million years

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker speaking.

On 20.11.21 17:38, Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> Thank you for reporting Niklas.
> 
> This is actually a case of use after free, as following that patch the
> recovery flow goes through mlx5_tout_cleanup() while timeouts structure
> is still needed in this flow.
> 
> We know the root cause and will send a fix.

That was twelve days ago, thus allow me asking: has any progress been
made? I could not find any with a quick search on lore.

Ciao, Thorsten

> On 11/19/2021 12:58 PM, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>> Hello Amir, Moshe, and Saeed,
>>
>> (resent due to wrong netdev mailing list address, sorry about that)
>>
>> During testing of PCI device recovery, I found a problem in the mlx5
>> recovery support introduced in v5.16-rc1 by commit 32def4120e48
>> ("net/mlx5: Read timeout values from DTOR"). It follows my analysis of
>> the problem.
>>
>> When the device is in an error state, at least on s390 but I believe
>> also on other systems, it is isolated and all PCI MMIO reads return
>> 0xff. This is detected by your driver and it will immediately attempt
>> to recovery the device with a mlx5_core driver specific recovery
>> mechanism. Since at this point no reset has been done that would take
>> the device out of isolation this will of course fail as it can't
>> communicate with the device. Under normal circumstances this reset
>> would happen later during the new recovery flow introduced in
>> 4cdf2f4e24ff ("s390/pci: implement minimal PCI error recovery") once
>> firmware has done their side of the recovery allowing that to succeed
>> once the driver specific recovery has failed.
>>
>> With v5.16-rc1 however the driver specific recovery gets stuck holding
>> locks which will block our recovery. Without our recovery mechanism
>> this can also be seen by "echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/<dev>/remove"
>> which hangs on the device lock forever.
>>
>> Digging into this I tracked the problem down to
>> mlx5_health_wait_pci_up() hangig. I added a debug print to it and it
>> turns out that with the device isolated mlx5_tout_ms(dev, FW_RESET)
>> returns 774039849367420401 (0x6B...6B) milliseconds and we try to wait
>> 245 million years. After reverting that commit things work again,
>> though of course the driver specific recovery flow will still fail
>> before ours can kick in and finally succeed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Niklas Schnelle
>>
>> #regzbot introduced: 32def4120e48
>>
> 
> 

P.S.: As a Linux kernel regression tracker I'm getting a lot of reports
on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them. Unfortunately
therefore I sometimes will get things wrong or miss something important.
I hope that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to
tell me about it in a public reply. That's in everyone's interest, as
what I wrote above might be misleading to everyone reading this; any
suggestion I gave they thus might sent someone reading this down the
wrong rabbit hole, which none of us wants.

BTW, I have no personal interest in this issue, which is tracked using
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot
(https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/). I'm only posting
this mail to get things rolling again and hence don't need to be CC on
all further activities wrt to this regression.

#regzbot poke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ