Re: [Bug #14301] WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:154

[Eric Dumazet]

Eric Dumazet a Ãcrit :
> Eric Dumazet a Ãcrit :
>> Eric Dumazet a Ãcrit :
>>> Rafael J. Wysocki a Ãcrit :
>>>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>>>> of regressions introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.
>>>>
>>>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>>>> introduced between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.  Please verify if it still should
>>>> be listed and let me know (either way).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14301
>>>> Subject		: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:154
>>>> Submitter	: Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date		: 2009-09-30 12:24 (2 days old)
>>>> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125431350218137&w=4
>>>>
> 
> Investigation still needed...
> 

OK, my last (buggy ???) feeling is about commit 95766fff6b9a78d1

[UDP]: Add memory accounting.

(Its a two years old patch, oh well...)

Problem is the udp_poll() :

We check the first frame to be dequeued from sk_receive_queue has a good checksum.

If it doesnt, we drop the frame ( calling kfree_skb(skb); )

Problem is now we perform memory accounting on UDP, this kfree_skb()
should be done with socket locked, but we are allowed to
call lock_sock() from this udp_poll() context

unsigned int udp_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock, poll_table *wait)
{
        unsigned int mask = datagram_poll(file, sock, wait);
        struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
        int     is_lite = IS_UDPLITE(sk);

        /* Check for false positives due to checksum errors */
        if ((mask & POLLRDNORM) &&
            !(file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) &&
            !(sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN)) {
                struct sk_buff_head *rcvq = &sk->sk_receive_queue;
                struct sk_buff *skb;

                spin_lock_bh(&rcvq->lock);
                while ((skb = skb_peek(rcvq)) != NULL &&
                       udp_lib_checksum_complete(skb)) {
                        UDP_INC_STATS_BH(sock_net(sk),
                                        UDP_MIB_INERRORS, is_lite);
                        __skb_unlink(skb, rcvq);
<<HERE>>                kfree_skb(skb);
                }
                spin_unlock_bh(&rcvq->lock);



David, Herbert, any idea how to solve this problem ?

1) Allow false positives

Or

2) Maybe we should finally convert sk_forward_alloc to an atomic_t after all...
   This would make things easier, and speedup UDP (no more need to lock_sock())

Or 

3) ???

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/