Re: selftests: net: pmtu.sh: Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address

[Naresh Kamboju]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 18:42, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 2:17 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 21:44:57 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >On 2023/08/30 20:26, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > >>> <4>[  399.014716] Call trace:
> > >>> <4>[  399.015702]  percpu_counter_add_batch+0x28/0xd0
> > >>> <4>[  399.016399]  dst_destroy+0x44/0x1e4
> > >>> <4>[  399.016681]  dst_destroy_rcu+0x14/0x20
> > >>> <4>[  399.017009]  rcu_core+0x2d0/0x5e0
> > >>> <4>[  399.017311]  rcu_core_si+0x10/0x1c
> > >>> <4>[  399.017609]  __do_softirq+0xd4/0x23c
> > >>> <4>[  399.017991]  ____do_softirq+0x10/0x1c
> > >>> <4>[  399.018320]  call_on_irq_stack+0x24/0x4c
> > >>> <4>[  399.018723]  do_softirq_own_stack+0x1c/0x28
> > >>> <4>[  399.022639]  __irq_exit_rcu+0x6c/0xcc
> > >>> <4>[  399.023434]  irq_exit_rcu+0x10/0x1c
> > >>> <4>[  399.023962]  el1_interrupt+0x8c/0xc0
> > >>> <4>[  399.024810]  el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24
> > >>> <4>[  399.025324]  el1h_64_irq+0x64/0x68
> > >>> <4>[  399.025612]  _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x0/0x6c
> > >>> <4>[  399.026102]  cleanup_net+0x280/0x45c
> > >>> <4>[  399.026403]  process_one_work+0x1d4/0x310
> > >>> <4>[  399.027140]  worker_thread+0x248/0x470
> > >>> <4>[  399.027621]  kthread+0xfc/0x184
> > >>> <4>[  399.028068]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> > >>
> > >> static void cleanup_net(struct work_struct *work)
> > >> {
> > >>      ...
> > >>
> > >>      synchronize_rcu();
> > >>
> > >>      /* Run all of the network namespace exit methods */
> > >>      list_for_each_entry_reverse(ops, &pernet_list, list)
> > >>              ops_exit_list(ops, &net_exit_list);
> > >>      ...
> > >>
> > >> Why did the RCU sync above fail to work in this report, Eric?
> > >
> > > Why do you assume that synchronize_rcu() failed to work?
> >
> > In the ipv6 pernet_operations [1] for instance, dst_entries_destroy() is
> > invoked after RCU sync to ensure that nobody is using the exiting net,
> > but this report shows that protection falls apart.
>
> Because synchronize_rcu() is not the same than rcu_barrier()
>
> The dst_entries_add()/ percpu_counter_add_batch() call should not
> happen after an rcu grace period.
>
> Something like this (untested) patch
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dst.c b/net/core/dst.c
> index 980e2fd2f013b3e50cc47ed0666ee5f24f50444b..f02fdd1da6066a4d56c2a0aa8038eca76d62f8bd
> 100644
> --- a/net/core/dst.c
> +++ b/net/core/dst.c
> @@ -163,8 +163,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dst_dev_put);
>
>  void dst_release(struct dst_entry *dst)
>  {
> -       if (dst && rcuref_put(&dst->__rcuref))
> +       if (dst && rcuref_put(&dst->__rcuref)) {
> +               if (!(dst->flags & DST_NOCOUNT)) {
> +                       dst->flags |= DST_NOCOUNT;
> +                       dst_entries_add(dst->ops, -1);
> +               }
>                 call_rcu_hurry(&dst->rcu_head, dst_destroy_rcu);
> +       }
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dst_release);
>

The above patch applied on top of Linux next and tested
selftests : net: pmtu.sh and test did not crash.

Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx>

> It is not even clear why we are still counting dst these days.
> We removed the ipv4 route cache a long time ago, and ipv6 got a
> similar treatment.

Links,
https://tuxapi.tuxsuite.com/v1/groups/linaro/projects/naresh/tests/2Uw58x3xJIqqpYDZspTytGe3L1V
https://tuxapi.tuxsuite.com/v1/groups/linaro/projects/naresh/tests/2Uw58x3xJIqqpYDZspTytGe3L1V/logs?format=html


--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org