[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJnX6sm1UHbU6TKzoWJJyNLGjpN_amb8bkmgnLk8Qj_gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 21:58:07 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: set SOCK_RCU_FREE before inserting socket into hashtable
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 9:28 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> We've started to see the following kernel traces:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 83 PID: 0 at net/core/filter.c:6641 sk_lookup+0x1bd/0x1d0
>
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ>
> __bpf_skc_lookup+0x10d/0x120
> bpf_sk_lookup+0x48/0xd0
> bpf_sk_lookup_tcp+0x19/0x20
> bpf_prog_<redacted>+0x37c/0x16a3
> cls_bpf_classify+0x205/0x2e0
> tcf_classify+0x92/0x160
> __netif_receive_skb_core+0xe52/0xf10
> __netif_receive_skb_list_core+0x96/0x2b0
> napi_complete_done+0x7b5/0xb70
> <redacted>_poll+0x94/0xb0
> net_rx_action+0x163/0x1d70
> __do_softirq+0xdc/0x32e
> asm_call_irq_on_stack+0x12/0x20
> </IRQ>
> do_softirq_own_stack+0x36/0x50
> do_softirq+0x44/0x70
>
> I'm not 100% what is causing them. It might be some kernel change or
> new code path in the bpf program. But looking at the code,
> I'm assuming the issue has been there for a while.
>
> __inet_hash can race with lockless (rcu) readers on the other cpus:
>
> __inet_hash
> __sk_nulls_add_node_rcu
> <- (bpf triggers here)
> sock_set_flag(SOCK_RCU_FREE)
>
> Let's move the SOCK_RCU_FREE part up a bit, before we are inserting
> the socket into hashtables. Note, that the race is really harmless;
> the bpf callers are handling this situation (where listener socket
> doesn't have SOCK_RCU_FREE set) correctly, so the only
> annoyance is a WARN_ONCE (so not 100% sure whether it should
> wait until net-next instead).
>
> For the fixes tag, I'm using the original commit which added the flag.
When this commit added the flag, precise location of the
sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_RCU_FREE)
did not matter, because the thread calling __inet_hash() owns a reference on sk.
SOCK_RCU_FREE was tested only at dismantle time.
Back then BPF was not able yet to perform lookups, and double check if
SOCK_RCU_FREE
was set or not.
Checking SOCK_RCU_FREE _after_ the lookup to infer if a refcount has
been taken came
with commit 6acc9b432e67 ("bpf: Add helper to retrieve socket in BPF")
I think we can be more precise and help future debugging, in case more problems
need investigations.
Can you augment the changelog and use a different Fixes: tag ?
With that,
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> Fixes: 3b24d854cb35 ("tcp/dccp: do not touch listener sk_refcnt under synflood")
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> index 598c1b114d2c..a532f749e477 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c
> @@ -751,12 +751,12 @@ int __inet_hash(struct sock *sk, struct sock *osk)
> if (err)
> goto unlock;
> }
> + sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_RCU_FREE);
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_reuseport &&
> sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
> __sk_nulls_add_node_tail_rcu(sk, &ilb2->nulls_head);
> else
> __sk_nulls_add_node_rcu(sk, &ilb2->nulls_head);
> - sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_RCU_FREE);
> sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, 1);
> unlock:
> spin_unlock(&ilb2->lock);
> --
> 2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists