netdev - Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review

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: <CA+G9fYscMP+DTzaQGw1p-KxyhPi0JB64ABDu_aNSU0r+_VgBHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:18:03 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        slade@...dewatkins.com, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
> > There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> >
> > Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
>
> Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
> stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
>
> [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
> [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@...make) (gcc version
> 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
> [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
> <trim>
> [   18.499895] ================================
> [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
> [   18.511944] --------------------------------
> [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
> (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
> [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c
> [   18.545216]   _raw_spin_lock+0x50/0x64
> [   18.548973]   xs_tcp_state_change+0x1b4/0x440
> [   18.553343]   tcp_rcv_state_process+0x684/0x1300
> [   18.557972]   tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x70/0x290
> [   18.561731]   tcp_v4_rcv+0xc34/0xda0
> [   18.565316]   ip_local_deliver_finish+0x16c/0x3c0
> [   18.570032]   ip_local_deliver+0x6c/0x240
> [   18.574051]   ip_rcv_finish+0x98/0xe4
> [   18.577722]   ip_rcv+0x68/0x210
> [   18.580871]   __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x6c/0x9c
> [   18.585847]   __netif_receive_skb+0x2c/0x74
> [   18.590039]   netif_receive_skb_internal+0x88/0x20c
> [   18.594928]   netif_receive_skb+0x68/0x1a0
> [   18.599036]   smsc911x_poll+0x104/0x290
> [   18.602881]   net_rx_action+0x124/0x4bc
> [   18.606727]   __do_softirq+0x1d0/0x524
> [   18.610484]   irq_exit+0x11c/0x144
> [   18.613894]   __handle_domain_irq+0x84/0xe0
> [   18.618086]   gic_handle_irq+0x5c/0xb0
> [   18.621843]   el1_irq+0xb4/0x130
> [   18.625081]   cpuidle_enter_state+0xc0/0x3ec
> [   18.629361]   cpuidle_enter+0x38/0x4c
> [   18.633032]   do_idle+0x200/0x2c0
> [   18.636353]   cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x50
> [   18.640372]   rest_init+0x260/0x270
> [   18.643870]   start_kernel+0x45c/0x490
> [   18.647625] irq event stamp: 18931
> [   18.651037] hardirqs last  enabled at (18931): [<ffff00000832e800>]
> kfree+0xe0/0x370
> [   18.658799] hardirqs last disabled at (18930): [<ffff00000832e7ec>]
> kfree+0xcc/0x370
> [   18.666564] softirqs last  enabled at (18920): [<ffff000008fbce94>]
> rpc_wake_up_first_on_wq+0xb4/0x1b0
> [   18.675893] softirqs last disabled at (18918): [<ffff000008fbce18>]
> rpc_wake_up_first_on_wq+0x38/0x1b0
> [   18.685217]
> [   18.685217] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   18.691758]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [   18.691758]
> [   18.697689]        CPU0
> [   18.700137]        ----
> [   18.702586]   lock(&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock);
> [   18.707562]   <Interrupt>
> [   18.710184]     lock(&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock);
> [   18.715335]
> [   18.715335]  *** DEADLOCK ***

My bisect script pointed to the following kernel commit,

BAT BISECTION OLD: This iteration (kernel rev
2d235d26dcf81d34c93ba8616d75c804b5ee5f3f) presents old behavior.
242a3e0c75b64b4ced82e29e07a6d6d98eeec826 is the first new commit
commit 242a3e0c75b64b4ced82e29e07a6d6d98eeec826
Author: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Date:   Tue Mar 8 13:42:17 2022 +1100

    SUNRPC: avoid race between mod_timer() and del_timer_sync()

    commit 3848e96edf4788f772d83990022fa7023a233d83 upstream.

    xprt_destory() claims XPRT_LOCKED and then calls del_timer_sync().
    Both xprt_unlock_connect() and xprt_release() call
     ->release_xprt()
    which drops XPRT_LOCKED and *then* xprt_schedule_autodisconnect()
    which calls mod_timer().

    This may result in mod_timer() being called *after* del_timer_sync().
    When this happens, the timer may fire long after the xprt has been freed,
    and run_timer_softirq() will probably crash.

    The pairing of ->release_xprt() and xprt_schedule_autodisconnect() is
    always called under ->transport_lock.  So if we take ->transport_lock to
    call del_timer_sync(), we can be sure that mod_timer() will run first
    (if it runs at all).

    Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
    Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
    Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>
    Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

 net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>

 --
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org