Lockdep is unhappy if two locks from the same class are held.
Fix the below warning for hyperv and virtio sockets (vmci socket code
doesn't have the issue) by using lock_sock_nested() when __vsock_release()
is called recursively:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.3.0+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
server/1795 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8880c5158990 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock]
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
2 locks held by server/1795:
#0: ffff8880c5d05ff8 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#10){+.+.}, at: __sock_release+0x2d/0xa0
#1: ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 5 PID: 1795 Comm: server Not tainted 5.3.0+ #1
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x67/0x90
__lock_acquire.cold.67+0xd2/0x20b
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x1c0
lock_sock_nested+0x6d/0x90
hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock]
__vsock_release+0x24/0xf0 [vsock]
__vsock_release+0xa0/0xf0 [vsock]
vsock_release+0x12/0x30 [vsock]
__sock_release+0x37/0xa0
sock_close+0x14/0x20
__fput+0xc1/0x250
task_work_run+0x98/0xc0
do_exit+0x344/0xc60
do_group_exit+0x47/0xb0
get_signal+0x15c/0xc50
do_signal+0x30/0x720
exit_to_usermode_loop+0x50/0xa0
do_syscall_64+0x24e/0x270
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
RIP: 0033:0x7f4184e85f31
Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]>
---
NOTE: I only tested the code on Hyper-V. I can not test the code for
virtio socket, as I don't have a KVM host. :-( Sorry.
@Stefan, @Stefano: please review & test the patch for virtio socket,
and let me know if the patch breaks anything. Thanks!
Changes in v2:
Avoid the duplication of code in v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/19/1361
Also fix virtio socket code.
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c | 2 +-
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index ab47bf3ab66e..dbae4373cbab 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -638,8 +638,10 @@ struct sock *__vsock_create(struct net *net,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vsock_create);
-static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
+static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk, int level)
{
+ WARN_ON(level != 1 && level != 2);
+
if (sk) {
struct sk_buff *skb;
struct sock *pending;
@@ -648,9 +650,18 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
pending = NULL; /* Compiler warning. */
+ /* The release call is supposed to use lock_sock_nested()
+ * rather than lock_sock(), if a sock lock should be acquired.
+ */
transport->release(vsk);
- lock_sock(sk);
+ /* When "level" is 2, use the nested version to avoid the
+ * warning "possible recursive locking detected".
+ */
+ if (level == 1)
+ lock_sock(sk);
+ else
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
sock_orphan(sk);
sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
@@ -659,7 +670,7 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
/* Clean up any sockets that never were accepted. */
while ((pending = vsock_dequeue_accept(sk)) != NULL) {
- __vsock_release(pending);
+ __vsock_release(pending, 2);
sock_put(pending);
}
@@ -708,7 +719,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_stream_has_space);
static int vsock_release(struct socket *sock)
{
- __vsock_release(sock->sk);
+ __vsock_release(sock->sk, 1);
sock->sk = NULL;
sock->state = SS_FREE;
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
index 261521d286d6..c443db7af8d4 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
@@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static void hvs_release(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
struct sock *sk = sk_vsock(vsk);
bool remove_sock;
- lock_sock(sk);
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
remove_sock = hvs_close_lock_held(vsk);
release_sock(sk);
if (remove_sock)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
index 5bb70c692b1e..a666ef8fc54e 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
@@ -820,7 +820,7 @@ void virtio_transport_release(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
struct sock *sk = &vsk->sk;
bool remove_sock = true;
- lock_sock(sk);
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM)
remove_sock = virtio_transport_close(vsk);
--
2.19.1
Hi Dexuan,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:11:27AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> Lockdep is unhappy if two locks from the same class are held.
>
> Fix the below warning for hyperv and virtio sockets (vmci socket code
> doesn't have the issue) by using lock_sock_nested() when __vsock_release()
> is called recursively:
>
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 5.3.0+ #1 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> server/1795 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff8880c5158990 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock]
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
> lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 2 locks held by server/1795:
> #0: ffff8880c5d05ff8 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#10){+.+.}, at: __sock_release+0x2d/0xa0
> #1: ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock]
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 5 PID: 1795 Comm: server Not tainted 5.3.0+ #1
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x67/0x90
> __lock_acquire.cold.67+0xd2/0x20b
> lock_acquire+0xb5/0x1c0
> lock_sock_nested+0x6d/0x90
> hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock]
> __vsock_release+0x24/0xf0 [vsock]
> __vsock_release+0xa0/0xf0 [vsock]
> vsock_release+0x12/0x30 [vsock]
> __sock_release+0x37/0xa0
> sock_close+0x14/0x20
> __fput+0xc1/0x250
> task_work_run+0x98/0xc0
> do_exit+0x344/0xc60
> do_group_exit+0x47/0xb0
> get_signal+0x15c/0xc50
> do_signal+0x30/0x720
> exit_to_usermode_loop+0x50/0xa0
> do_syscall_64+0x24e/0x270
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> RIP: 0033:0x7f4184e85f31
>
> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> NOTE: I only tested the code on Hyper-V. I can not test the code for
> virtio socket, as I don't have a KVM host. :-( Sorry.
>
> @Stefan, @Stefano: please review & test the patch for virtio socket,
> and let me know if the patch breaks anything. Thanks!
Comment below, I'll test it ASAP!
>
> Changes in v2:
> Avoid the duplication of code in v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/19/1361
> Also fix virtio socket code.
>
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c | 2 +-
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> index ab47bf3ab66e..dbae4373cbab 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> @@ -638,8 +638,10 @@ struct sock *__vsock_create(struct net *net,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vsock_create);
>
> -static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
> +static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk, int level)
> {
> + WARN_ON(level != 1 && level != 2);
> +
> if (sk) {
> struct sk_buff *skb;
> struct sock *pending;
> @@ -648,9 +650,18 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
> vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
> pending = NULL; /* Compiler warning. */
>
> + /* The release call is supposed to use lock_sock_nested()
> + * rather than lock_sock(), if a sock lock should be acquired.
> + */
> transport->release(vsk);
>
> - lock_sock(sk);
> + /* When "level" is 2, use the nested version to avoid the
> + * warning "possible recursive locking detected".
> + */
> + if (level == 1)
> + lock_sock(sk);
Since lock_sock() calls lock_sock_nested(sk, 0), could we use directly
lock_sock_nested(sk, level) with level = 0 in vsock_release() and
level = SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING here in the while loop?
> + else
> + lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> sock_orphan(sk);
> sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
>
> @@ -659,7 +670,7 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
>
> /* Clean up any sockets that never were accepted. */
> while ((pending = vsock_dequeue_accept(sk)) != NULL) {
> - __vsock_release(pending);
> + __vsock_release(pending, 2);
> sock_put(pending);
> }
>
> @@ -708,7 +719,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_stream_has_space);
>
> static int vsock_release(struct socket *sock)
> {
> - __vsock_release(sock->sk);
> + __vsock_release(sock->sk, 1);
> sock->sk = NULL;
> sock->state = SS_FREE;
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
> index 261521d286d6..c443db7af8d4 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static void hvs_release(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
> struct sock *sk = sk_vsock(vsk);
> bool remove_sock;
>
> - lock_sock(sk);
> + lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> remove_sock = hvs_close_lock_held(vsk);
> release_sock(sk);
> if (remove_sock)
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> index 5bb70c692b1e..a666ef8fc54e 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> @@ -820,7 +820,7 @@ void virtio_transport_release(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
> struct sock *sk = &vsk->sk;
> bool remove_sock = true;
>
> - lock_sock(sk);
> + lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM)
> remove_sock = virtio_transport_close(vsk);
>
Thanks,
Stefano
> From: [email protected]
> <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stefano Garzarella
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:48 AM
>
> Hi Dexuan,
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:11:27AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > ...
> > NOTE: I only tested the code on Hyper-V. I can not test the code for
> > virtio socket, as I don't have a KVM host. :-( Sorry.
> >
> > @Stefan, @Stefano: please review & test the patch for virtio socket,
> > and let me know if the patch breaks anything. Thanks!
>
> Comment below, I'll test it ASAP!
Stefano, Thank you!
BTW, this is how I tested the patch:
1. write a socket server program in the guest. The program calls listen()
and then calls sleep(10000 seconds). Note: accept() is not called.
2. create some connections to the server program in the guest.
3. kill the server program by Ctrl+C, and "dmesg" will show the scary
call-trace, if the kernel is built with
CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
4. Apply the patch, do the same test and we should no longer see the call-trace.
> > - lock_sock(sk);
> > + /* When "level" is 2, use the nested version to avoid the
> > + * warning "possible recursive locking detected".
> > + */
> > + if (level == 1)
> > + lock_sock(sk);
>
> Since lock_sock() calls lock_sock_nested(sk, 0), could we use directly
> lock_sock_nested(sk, level) with level = 0 in vsock_release() and
> level = SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING here in the while loop?
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
IMHO it's better to make the lock usage more explicit, as the patch does.
lock_sock_nested(sk, level) or lock_sock_nested(sk, 0) seems a little
odd to me. But I'm open to your suggestion: if any of the network
maintainers, e.g. davem, also agrees with you, I'll change the code
as you suggested. :-)
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:37:20AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: [email protected]
> > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stefano Garzarella
> > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:48 AM
> >
> > Hi Dexuan,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:11:27AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > > ...
> > > NOTE: I only tested the code on Hyper-V. I can not test the code for
> > > virtio socket, as I don't have a KVM host. :-( Sorry.
> > >
> > > @Stefan, @Stefano: please review & test the patch for virtio socket,
> > > and let me know if the patch breaks anything. Thanks!
> >
> > Comment below, I'll test it ASAP!
>
> Stefano, Thank you!
>
> BTW, this is how I tested the patch:
> 1. write a socket server program in the guest. The program calls listen()
> and then calls sleep(10000 seconds). Note: accept() is not called.
>
> 2. create some connections to the server program in the guest.
>
> 3. kill the server program by Ctrl+C, and "dmesg" will show the scary
> call-trace, if the kernel is built with
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
>
> 4. Apply the patch, do the same test and we should no longer see the call-trace.
Thanks very useful! I'll follow these steps!
>
> > > - lock_sock(sk);
> > > + /* When "level" is 2, use the nested version to avoid the
> > > + * warning "possible recursive locking detected".
> > > + */
> > > + if (level == 1)
> > > + lock_sock(sk);
> >
> > Since lock_sock() calls lock_sock_nested(sk, 0), could we use directly
> > lock_sock_nested(sk, level) with level = 0 in vsock_release() and
> > level = SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING here in the while loop?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefano
>
> IMHO it's better to make the lock usage more explicit, as the patch does.
>
> lock_sock_nested(sk, level) or lock_sock_nested(sk, 0) seems a little
> odd to me. But I'm open to your suggestion: if any of the network
> maintainers, e.g. davem, also agrees with you, I'll change the code
> as you suggested. :-)
Sure!
Just to be clear, I'm proposing this (plus the changes in the transports
and yours useful comments):
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -638,7 +638,7 @@ struct sock *__vsock_create(struct net *net,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vsock_create);
-static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
+static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk, int level)
{
if (sk) {
struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
transport->release(vsk);
- lock_sock(sk);
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, level);
sock_orphan(sk);
sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
@@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
/* Clean up any sockets that never were accepted. */
while ((pending = vsock_dequeue_accept(sk)) != NULL) {
- __vsock_release(pending);
+ __vsock_release(pending, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
sock_put(pending);
}
@@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_stream_has_space);
static int vsock_release(struct socket *sock)
{
- __vsock_release(sock->sk);
+ __vsock_release(sock->sk, 0);
sock->sk = NULL;
sock->state = SS_FREE;
Thanks,
Stefano
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:37:20AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: [email protected]
> > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stefano Garzarella
> > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:48 AM
> >
> > Hi Dexuan,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:11:27AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > > ...
> > > NOTE: I only tested the code on Hyper-V. I can not test the code for
> > > virtio socket, as I don't have a KVM host. :-( Sorry.
> > >
> > > @Stefan, @Stefano: please review & test the patch for virtio socket,
> > > and let me know if the patch breaks anything. Thanks!
> >
> > Comment below, I'll test it ASAP!
>
> Stefano, Thank you!
>
> BTW, this is how I tested the patch:
> 1. write a socket server program in the guest. The program calls listen()
> and then calls sleep(10000 seconds). Note: accept() is not called.
>
> 2. create some connections to the server program in the guest.
>
> 3. kill the server program by Ctrl+C, and "dmesg" will show the scary
> call-trace, if the kernel is built with
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y
>
> 4. Apply the patch, do the same test and we should no longer see the call-trace.
>
Hi Dexuan,
I tested on virtio socket and it works as expected!
With your patch applied I don't have issues and call-trace. Without
the patch I have a very similar call-trace (as expected):
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.3.0-vsock #17 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
python3/872 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88802b650110 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: virtio_transport_release+0x34/0x330 [vmw_vsock_virtio_transport_common]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88803597ce10 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x3f/0x130 [vsock]
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
2 locks held by python3/872:
#0: ffff88802c957180 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.}, at: __sock_release+0x2d/0xb0
#1: ffff88803597ce10 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x3f/0x130 [vsock]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 872 Comm: python3 Not tainted 5.3.0-vsock #17
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-2.fc30 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x85/0xc0
__lock_acquire.cold+0xad/0x22b
lock_acquire+0xc4/0x1a0
? virtio_transport_release+0x34/0x330 [vmw_vsock_virtio_transport_common]
lock_sock_nested+0x5d/0x80
? virtio_transport_release+0x34/0x330 [vmw_vsock_virtio_transport_common]
virtio_transport_release+0x34/0x330 [vmw_vsock_virtio_transport_common]
? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x70
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x44/0x60
__vsock_release+0x2d/0x130 [vsock]
__vsock_release+0xb9/0x130 [vsock]
vsock_release+0x12/0x30 [vsock]
__sock_release+0x3d/0xb0
sock_close+0x14/0x20
__fput+0xc1/0x250
task_work_run+0x93/0xb0
exit_to_usermode_loop+0xd3/0xe0
syscall_return_slowpath+0x205/0x310
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
Feel free to add:
Tested-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
> From: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 6:51 AM
> ...
> Feel free to add:
>
> Tested-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
Thanks, Stefano!
I'll post a v3 with your suggestion "lock_sock_nested(sk, level);".
It does look better than v2 to me. :-)
Thanks,
-- Dexuan