Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning

From: Anders Roxell
Date: Thu Nov 21 2019 - 02:15:47 EST

Next message: John Hubbard: "[PATCH v7 01/24] mm/gup: pass flags arg to __gup_device_* functions"
Previous message: John Hubbard: "[PATCH v7 04/24] mm: Cleanup __put_devmap_managed_page() vs ->page_free()"
In reply to: Eric Dumazet: "Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning"
Next in thread: Anders Roxell: "Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 18:45, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/20/19 7:22 AM, Anders Roxell wrote:
> > When booting an arm64 allmodconfig kernel on linux-next next-20191115
> > The following "suspicious RCU usage" warning shows up. This bug seems
> > to have been introduced by commit f0ad0860d01e ("ipv4: ipmr: support
> > multiple tables") in 2010, but the warning was added only in this past
> > year by commit 28875945ba98 ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU
> > reader checking").
> >
> > [ 32.496021][ T1] =============================
> > [ 32.497616][ T1] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 32.499614][ T1] 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2 Not tainted
> > [ 32.502018][ T1] -----------------------------
> > [ 32.503976][ T1] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:136 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> > [ 32.506746][ T1]
> > [ 32.506746][ T1] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 32.506746][ T1]
> > [ 32.509794][ T1]
> > [ 32.509794][ T1] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> > [ 32.512661][ T1] 1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
> > [ 32.514169][ T1] #0: ffffa000150dd678 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}, at: register_pernet_subsys+0x24/0x50
> > [ 32.517621][ T1]
> > [ 32.517621][ T1] stack backtrace:
> > [ 32.519930][ T1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2
> > [ 32.523063][ T1] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > [ 32.524787][ T1] Call trace:
> > [ 32.525946][ T1] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0
> > [ 32.527433][ T1] show_stack+0x20/0x30
> > [ 32.528811][ T1] dump_stack+0x204/0x2ac
> > [ 32.530258][ T1] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xf4/0x108
> > [ 32.531993][ T1] ipmr_get_table+0xc8/0x170
> > [ 32.533496][ T1] ipmr_new_table+0x48/0xa0
> > [ 32.535002][ T1] ipmr_net_init+0xe8/0x258
> > [ 32.536465][ T1] ops_init+0x280/0x2d8
> > [ 32.537876][ T1] register_pernet_operations+0x210/0x420
> > [ 32.539707][ T1] register_pernet_subsys+0x30/0x50
> > [ 32.541372][ T1] ip_mr_init+0x54/0x180
> > [ 32.542785][ T1] inet_init+0x25c/0x3e8
> > [ 32.544186][ T1] do_one_initcall+0x4c0/0xad8
> > [ 32.545757][ T1] kernel_init_freeable+0x3e0/0x500
> > [ 32.547443][ T1] kernel_init+0x14/0x1f0
> > [ 32.548875][ T1] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
> >
> > This commit therefore holds RTNL mutex around the problematic code path,
> > which is function ipmr_rules_init() in ipmr_net_init(). This commit
> > also adds a lockdep_rtnl_is_held() check to the ipmr_for_each_table()
> > macro.
> >
> > Suggested-by: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/ipmr.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> > index 6e68def66822..53dff9a0e60a 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> > @@ -110,7 +110,8 @@ static void ipmr_expire_process(struct timer_list *t);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES
> > #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \
> > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list)
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \
> > + lockdep_rtnl_is_held())
> >
> > static struct mr_table *ipmr_mr_table_iter(struct net *net,
> > struct mr_table *mrt)
> > @@ -3086,7 +3087,9 @@ static int __net_init ipmr_net_init(struct net *net)
> > if (err)
> > goto ipmr_notifier_fail;
> >
> > + rtnl_lock();
> > err = ipmr_rules_init(net);
> > + rtnl_unlock();
> > if (err < 0)
> > goto ipmr_rules_fail;
>
> Hmmm... this might have performance impact for creation of a new netns
>
> Since the 'struct net' is not yet fully initialized (thus published/visible),
> should we really have to grab RTNL (again) only to silence a warning ?
>
> What about the following alternative ?

I tried what you suggested, unfortunately, I still got the warning.

[ 43.253850][ T1] =============================
[ 43.255473][ T1] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[ 43.259068][ T1]
5.4.0-rc8-next-20191120-00003-g3aa7c2a8649e-dirty #6 Not tainted
[ 43.263078][ T1] -----------------------------
[ 43.265134][ T1] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:1759 RCU-list traversed in
non-reader section!!
[ 43.267587][ T1]
[ 43.267587][ T1] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 43.267587][ T1]
[ 43.271129][ T1]
[ 43.271129][ T1] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
[ 43.274021][ T1] 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
[ 43.275532][ T1] #0: ffff000065abeaa0 (&dev->mutex){....}, at:
__device_driver_lock+0xa0/0xb0
[ 43.278930][ T1] #1: ffffa000153017f0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}, at:
rtnl_lock+0x1c/0x28
[ 43.282023][ T1]
[ 43.282023][ T1] stack backtrace:
[ 43.283921][ T1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
5.4.0-rc8-next-20191120-00003-g3aa7c2a8649e-dirty #6
[ 43.287152][ T1] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
[ 43.288920][ T1] Call trace:
[ 43.290057][ T1] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0
[ 43.291535][ T1] show_stack+0x20/0x30
[ 43.292967][ T1] dump_stack+0x204/0x2ac
[ 43.294423][ T1] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xf4/0x108
[ 43.296163][ T1] ipmr_device_event+0x100/0x1e8
[ 43.297812][ T1] notifier_call_chain+0x100/0x1a8
[ 43.299486][ T1] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x38/0x48
[ 43.301248][ T1] call_netdevice_notifiers_info+0x128/0x148
[ 43.303158][ T1] rollback_registered_many+0x684/0xb48
[ 43.304963][ T1] rollback_registered+0xd8/0x150
[ 43.306595][ T1] unregister_netdevice_queue+0x194/0x1b8
[ 43.308406][ T1] unregister_netdev+0x24/0x38
[ 43.310012][ T1] virtnet_remove+0x44/0x78
[ 43.311519][ T1] virtio_dev_remove+0x5c/0xc0
[ 43.313114][ T1] really_probe+0x508/0x920
[ 43.314635][ T1] driver_probe_device+0x164/0x230
[ 43.316337][ T1] device_driver_attach+0x8c/0xc0
[ 43.318024][ T1] __driver_attach+0x1e0/0x1f8
[ 43.319584][ T1] bus_for_each_dev+0xf0/0x188
[ 43.321169][ T1] driver_attach+0x34/0x40
[ 43.322645][ T1] bus_add_driver+0x204/0x3c8
[ 43.324202][ T1] driver_register+0x160/0x1f8
[ 43.325788][ T1] register_virtio_driver+0x7c/0x88
[ 43.327480][ T1] virtio_net_driver_init+0xa8/0xf4
[ 43.329196][ T1] do_one_initcall+0x4c0/0xad8
[ 43.330767][ T1] kernel_init_freeable+0x3e0/0x500
[ 43.332444][ T1] kernel_init+0x14/0x1f0
[ 43.333901][ T1] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

Cheers,
Anders

>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> index 6e68def66822f47fc08d94eddd32a4bd4f9fdfb0..b6dcdce08f1d82c83756a319623e24ae0174092c 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mfc_unres_lock);
>
> static struct kmem_cache *mrt_cachep __ro_after_init;
>
> -static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id);
> +static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id, bool init);
> static void ipmr_free_table(struct mr_table *mrt);
>
> static void ip_mr_forward(struct net *net, struct mr_table *mrt,
> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static int __net_init ipmr_rules_init(struct net *net)
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&net->ipv4.mr_tables);
>
> - mrt = ipmr_new_table(net, RT_TABLE_DEFAULT);
> + mrt = ipmr_new_table(net, RT_TABLE_DEFAULT, true);
> if (IS_ERR(mrt)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(mrt);
> goto err1;
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static int __net_init ipmr_rules_init(struct net *net)
> {
> struct mr_table *mrt;
>
> - mrt = ipmr_new_table(net, RT_TABLE_DEFAULT);
> + mrt = ipmr_new_table(net, RT_TABLE_DEFAULT, true);
> if (IS_ERR(mrt))
> return PTR_ERR(mrt);
> net->ipv4.mrt = mrt;
> @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ static struct mr_table_ops ipmr_mr_table_ops = {
> .cmparg_any = &ipmr_mr_table_ops_cmparg_any,
> };
>
> -static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id)
> +static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id, bool init)
> {
> struct mr_table *mrt;
>
> @@ -400,9 +400,11 @@ static struct mr_table *ipmr_new_table(struct net *net, u32 id)
> if (id != RT_TABLE_DEFAULT && id >= 1000000000)
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> - mrt = ipmr_get_table(net, id);
> - if (mrt)
> - return mrt;
> + if (!init) {
> + mrt = ipmr_get_table(net, id);
> + if (mrt)
> + return mrt;
> + }
>
> return mr_table_alloc(net, id, &ipmr_mr_table_ops,
> ipmr_expire_process, ipmr_new_table_set);
> @@ -1547,7 +1549,7 @@ int ip_mroute_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname, char __user *optval,
> if (sk == rtnl_dereference(mrt->mroute_sk)) {
> ret = -EBUSY;
> } else {
> - mrt = ipmr_new_table(net, uval);
> + mrt = ipmr_new_table(net, uval, false);
> if (IS_ERR(mrt))
> ret = PTR_ERR(mrt);
> else
>
>

Next message: John Hubbard: "[PATCH v7 01/24] mm/gup: pass flags arg to __gup_device_* functions"
Previous message: John Hubbard: "[PATCH v7 04/24] mm: Cleanup __put_devmap_managed_page() vs ->page_free()"
In reply to: Eric Dumazet: "Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning"
Next in thread: Anders Roxell: "Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipmr: fix suspicious RCU warning"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]