[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d1907a7e-1988-4570-afb5-49ee4ed4ffa2@candelatech.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 06:39:15 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "vrf: Remove unnecessary RCU-bh critical
section"
On 9/27/24 02:35, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 9/26/24 02:03, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> greearb@ wrote:
>>>> From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
>>>>
>>>> This reverts commit 504fc6f4f7f681d2a03aa5f68aad549d90eab853.
>>>>
>>>> dev_queue_xmit_nit needs to run with bh locking, otherwise
>>>> it conflicts with packets coming in from a nic in softirq
>>>> context and packets being transmitted from user context.
>>>>
>>>> ================================
>>>> WARNING: inconsistent lock state
>>>> 6.11.0 #1 Tainted: G W
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
>>>> btserver/134819 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
>>>> ffff8882da30c118 (rlock-AF_PACKET){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: tpacket_rcv+0x863/0x3b30
>>>> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
>>>> lock_acquire+0x19a/0x4f0
>>>> _raw_spin_lock+0x27/0x40
>>>> packet_rcv+0xa33/0x1320
>>>> __netif_receive_skb_core.constprop.0+0xcb0/0x3a90
>>>> __netif_receive_skb_list_core+0x2c9/0x890
>>>> netif_receive_skb_list_internal+0x610/0xcc0
>>>> napi_complete_done+0x1c0/0x7c0
>>>> igb_poll+0x1dbb/0x57e0 [igb]
>>>> __napi_poll.constprop.0+0x99/0x430
>>>> net_rx_action+0x8e7/0xe10
>>>> handle_softirqs+0x1b7/0x800
>>>> __irq_exit_rcu+0x91/0xc0
>>>> irq_exit_rcu+0x5/0x10
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>>>
>>>> CPU0
>>>> ----
>>>> lock(rlock-AF_PACKET);
>>>> <Interrupt>
>>>> lock(rlock-AF_PACKET);
>>>>
>>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>>>
>>>> Call Trace:
>>>> <TASK>
>>>> dump_stack_lvl+0x73/0xa0
>>>> mark_lock+0x102e/0x16b0
>>>> __lock_acquire+0x9ae/0x6170
>>>> lock_acquire+0x19a/0x4f0
>>>> _raw_spin_lock+0x27/0x40
>>>> tpacket_rcv+0x863/0x3b30
>>>> dev_queue_xmit_nit+0x709/0xa40
>>>> vrf_finish_direct+0x26e/0x340 [vrf]
>>>> vrf_l3_out+0x5f4/0xe80 [vrf]
>>>> __ip_local_out+0x51e/0x7a0
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 504fc6f4f7f6 ("vrf: Remove unnecessary RCU-bh critical section")
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/05765015-f727-2f30-58da-2ad6fa7ea99f@candelatech.com/T/
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
>>>
>>> Please Cc: all previous reviewers and folks who participated in the
>>> discussion. I entirely missed this. No need to add as Cc tags, just
>>> --cc in git send-email will do.
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v2: Edit patch description.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/vrf.c | 2 ++
>>>> net/core/dev.c | 1 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/vrf.c b/drivers/net/vrf.c
>>>> index 4d8ccaf9a2b4..4087f72f0d2b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/vrf.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/vrf.c
>>>> @@ -608,7 +608,9 @@ static void vrf_finish_direct(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>> eth_zero_addr(eth->h_dest);
>>>> eth->h_proto = skb->protocol;
>>>>
>>>> + rcu_read_lock_bh();
>>>> dev_queue_xmit_nit(skb, vrf_dev);
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>>>>
>>>> skb_pull(skb, ETH_HLEN);
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>>> index cd479f5f22f6..566e69a38eed 100644
>>>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>>>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>>> @@ -2285,6 +2285,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_nit_active);
>>>> /*
>>>> * Support routine. Sends outgoing frames to any network
>>>> * taps currently in use.
>>>> + * BH must be disabled before calling this.
>>>
>>> Unnecessary. Especially patches for stable should be minimal to
>>> reduce the chance of conflicts.
>>
>> I was asked to add this, and also asked to CC stable.
>
> Conflicting feedback is annoying, but I disagree with the other
> comment.
>
> Not only does it potentially complicate backporting, it also is no
> longer a strict revert. In which case it must not be labeled as such.
>
> Easier is to keep the revert unmodified, and add the comment to the
> commit message.
>
> Most important is the Link to our earlier thread that explains the
> history.
>
> If the process appears byzantine, if you prefer I can also send it.
I would appreciate it if you can send it. As long as it functions,
I will be happy.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Thanks,
>
> Willem
>
>
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists