Re: [syzbot] [rdma?] INFO: trying to register non-static key in skb_dequeue (2)

[Guoqing Jiang]

On 5/23/23 13:52, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:44 PM Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 5/23/23 13:18, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:08 PM Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:29 PM Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:10 PM Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/23/23 12:02, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:47 AM Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:26 AM Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 5/23/23 10:13, syzbot wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > syzbot tried to test the proposed patch but the build/boot failed:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > failed to apply patch:
> > > > > > > > > > checking file drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> > > > > > > > > > patch: **** unexpected end of file in patch
> > > > > > > > This is not the root cause. The fix is not good.
> > > > > > > This problem is about "INFO: trying to register non-static key. The
> > > > > > > code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe"
> > > > > This warning is from "lock is not initialized". This is a
> > > > > use-before-initialized problem.
> > > > > The correct fix is to initialize the lock that is complained before it is used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zhu Yanjun
> > > > Based on the call trace, the followings are the order of this call trace.
> > > >
> > > > 291 /* called by the create qp verb */
> > > > 292 int rxe_qp_from_init(struct rxe_dev *rxe, struct rxe_qp *qp,
> > > > struct rxe_pd *pd,
> > > > 297 {
> > > >               ...
> > > > 317         rxe_qp_init_misc(rxe, qp, init);
> > > >               ...
> > > > 322
> > > > 323         err = rxe_qp_init_resp(rxe, qp, init, udata, uresp);
> > > > 324         if (err)
> > > > 325                 goto err2;   <--- error
> > > >
> > > >               ...
> > > >
> > > > 334 err2:
> > > > 335         rxe_queue_cleanup(qp->sq.queue); <--- Goto here
> > > > 336         qp->sq.queue = NULL;
> > > >
> > > > In rxe_qp_init_resp, the error occurs before skb_queue_head_init.
> > > > So this call trace appeared.
> > > 250 static int rxe_qp_init_resp(struct rxe_dev *rxe, struct rxe_qp *qp,
> > > 254 {
> > >                           ...
> > > 264
> > > 265                 type = QUEUE_TYPE_FROM_CLIENT;
> > > 266                 qp->rq.queue = rxe_queue_init(rxe, &qp->rq.max_wr,
> > > 267                                         wqe_size, type);
> > > 268                 if (!qp->rq.queue)
> > > 269                         return -ENOMEM;    <---Error here
> > > 270
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 282         skb_queue_head_init(&qp->resp_pkts); <-this is not called.
> > > ...
> > > This will make spin_lock of resp_pkts is used before initialized.
> > IMHO, the above is same as
> >
> > > Which is caused by  "skb_queue_head_init(&qp->resp_pkts)" is not called
> > > given rxe_qp_init_resp returns error, but the cleanup still trigger the
> > > chain.
> > >
> > > rxe_qp_do_cleanup -> rxe_completer -> drain_resp_pkts ->
> > > skb_dequeue(&qp->resp_pkts)
> > my previous analysis. If not, could you provide another better way to
> > fix it?
> Move the initialization to the beginning. This can fix this problem.
> See below:
>
> "
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> index c5451a4488ca..22ef6188d7b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> @@ -176,6 +176,9 @@ static void rxe_qp_init_misc(struct rxe_dev *rxe,
> struct rxe_qp *qp,
>          spin_lock_init(&qp->rq.producer_lock);
>          spin_lock_init(&qp->rq.consumer_lock);
>
> +       skb_queue_head_init(&qp->req_pkts);
> +       skb_queue_head_init(&qp->resp_pkts);
> +
>          atomic_set(&qp->ssn, 0);
>          atomic_set(&qp->skb_out, 0);
>   }
> @@ -234,8 +237,6 @@ static int rxe_qp_init_req(struct rxe_dev *rxe,
> struct rxe_qp *qp,
>          qp->req.opcode          = -1;
>          qp->comp.opcode         = -1;
>
> -       skb_queue_head_init(&qp->req_pkts);
> -
>          rxe_init_task(&qp->req.task, qp, rxe_requester);
>          rxe_init_task(&qp->comp.task, qp, rxe_completer);
>
> @@ -279,8 +280,6 @@ static int rxe_qp_init_resp(struct rxe_dev *rxe,
> struct rxe_qp *qp,
>                  }
>          }
>
> -       skb_queue_head_init(&qp->resp_pkts);
> -
>          rxe_init_task(&qp->resp.task, qp, rxe_responder);
>
>          qp->resp.opcode         = OPCODE_NONE;
> "

It is weird to me that init them in init_misc instead of init_req/resp, 
given they
are dedicated/used for the different purpose. But just my 0.02$.

Guoqing