[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y365S5s5qRQvm8m0@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:22:35 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>,
Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>
Cc: wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+5e70d01ee8985ae62a3b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, chenzhongjin@...wei.com,
RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] unregister_netdevice: waiting for DEV to become free (7)
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 05:45:53PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> But it is the caller's responsibility to destroy it since commit
> dd37d2f59eb8.
>
> > The causes are as follows:
> >
> > rdma_listen()
> > rdma_bind_addr()
> > cma_acquire_dev_by_src_ip()
> > cma_attach_to_dev()
> > _cma_attach_to_dev()
> > cma_dev_get()
>
> Thanks for the analysis.
>
> And for the two callers of cma_listen_on_dev, looks they have
> different behaviors with regard to handling failure.
Yes, the CM is not the problem, and that print from it is unrelated
I patched in netdevice_tracker and get this:
[ 237.475070][ T7541] unregister_netdevice: waiting for vlan0 to become free. Usage count = 2
[ 237.477311][ T7541] leaked reference.
[ 237.478378][ T7541] ib_device_set_netdev+0x266/0x730
[ 237.479848][ T7541] siw_newlink+0x4e0/0xfd0
[ 237.481100][ T7541] nldev_newlink+0x35c/0x5c0
[ 237.482121][ T7541] rdma_nl_rcv_msg+0x36d/0x690
[ 237.483312][ T7541] rdma_nl_rcv+0x2ee/0x430
[ 237.484483][ T7541] netlink_unicast+0x543/0x7f0
[ 237.485746][ T7541] netlink_sendmsg+0x918/0xe20
[ 237.486866][ T7541] sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120
[ 237.488006][ T7541] ____sys_sendmsg+0x70d/0x8b0
[ 237.489294][ T7541] ___sys_sendmsg+0x11d/0x1b0
[ 237.490404][ T7541] __sys_sendmsg+0xfa/0x1d0
[ 237.491451][ T7541] do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0
[ 237.492566][ T7541] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
Which seems to confirm my original prediction, except this is siw not
rxe..
Maybe rxe was the wrong guess, or maybe it is troubled too in other
reports?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists