netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] net: stmmac: protect updates of 64-bit statistics counters

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: <CANn89iL1piwsbsBx4Z=kySUfmPa9LbZn-SNthgA+W6NEnojgSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:52:52 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, Petr Tesarik <petr@...arici.cz>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, 
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, 
	"open list:STMMAC ETHERNET DRIVER" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE" <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>, 
	"moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, 
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:ARM/Allwinner sunXi SoC support" <linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev>, Marc Haber <mh+netdev@...schlus.de>, 
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: stmmac: protect updates of 64-bit statistics counters

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:51:35PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 3:29 PM Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 08:30:21PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 08:09:27PM +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > > > > As explained by a comment in <linux/u64_stats_sync.h>, write side of struct
> > > > > u64_stats_sync must ensure mutual exclusion, or one seqcount update could
> > > > > be lost on 32-bit platforms, thus blocking readers forever. Such lockups
> > > > > have been observed in real world after stmmac_xmit() on one CPU raced with
> > > > > stmmac_napi_poll_tx() on another CPU.
> > > > >
> > > > > To fix the issue without introducing a new lock, split the statics into
> > > > > three parts:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. fields updated only under the tx queue lock,
> > > > > 2. fields updated only during NAPI poll,
> > > > > 3. fields updated only from interrupt context,
> > > > >
> > > > > Updates to fields in the first two groups are already serialized through
> > > > > other locks. It is sufficient to split the existing struct u64_stats_sync
> > > > > so that each group has its own.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that tx_set_ic_bit is updated from both contexts. Split this counter
> > > > > so that each context gets its own, and calculate their sum to get the total
> > > > > value in stmmac_get_ethtool_stats().
> > > > >
> > > > > For the third group, multiple interrupts may be processed by different CPUs
> > > > > at the same time, but interrupts on the same CPU will not nest. Move fields
> > > > > from this group to a newly created per-cpu struct stmmac_pcpu_stats.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 133466c3bbe1 ("net: stmmac: use per-queue 64 bit statistics where necessary")
> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Za173PhviYg-1qIn@torres.zugschlus.de/t/
> > > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <petr@...arici.cz>
> > > >
> > > > This patch results in a lockdep splat. Backtrace and bisect results attached.
> > > >
> > > > Guenter
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > [   33.736728] ================================
> > > > [   33.736805] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > > > [   33.736953] 6.8.0-rc4 #1 Tainted: G                 N
> > > > [   33.737080] --------------------------------
> > > > [   33.737155] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> > > > [   33.737309] kworker/0:2/39 [HC1[1]:SC0[2]:HE0:SE0] takes:
> > > > [   33.737459] ef792074 (&syncp->seq#2){?...}-{0:0}, at: sun8i_dwmac_dma_interrupt+0x9c/0x28c
> > > > [   33.738206] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> > > > [   33.738318]   lock_acquire+0x11c/0x368
> > > > [   33.738431]   __u64_stats_update_begin+0x104/0x1ac
> > > > [   33.738525]   stmmac_xmit+0x4d0/0xc58
> > >
> > > interesting lockdep splat...
> > > stmmac_xmit() operates on txq_stats->q_syncp, while the
> > > sun8i_dwmac_dma_interrupt() operates on pcpu's priv->xstats.pcpu_stats
> > > they are different syncp. so how does lockdep splat happen.
> >
> > Right, I do not see anything obvious yet.
>
> Wild guess: I think it maybe saying that due to
>
>         inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
>
> the critical code may somehow be interrupted and, while handling the
> interrupt, try to acquire the same lock again.

This should not happen, the 'syncp' are different. They have different
lockdep classes.

One is exclusively used from hard irq context.

The second one only used from BH context.