Subject: Re: net/sunrpc/clnt.c:2773 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com>
References: <20161108054202.GA12406@linux.intel.com>
 <1478606028.2443.2.camel@redhat.com> <1478606957.2443.8.camel@redhat.com>
From: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com>
Message-ID: <60a0f29b-7a0a-c5e2-0e98-fa9a923dd339@Netapp.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:42:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1478606957.2443.8.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2016 12:43:05.0148 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0601MB1643
X-OriginatorOrg: netapp.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4929
Lines: 114

On 11/08/2016 07:09 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 06:53 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 22:42 -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>>
>>> I've got a virtual machine that has some NFS mounts, and with a newly compiled
>>> kernel based on v4.9-rc3 I see the following warning/info message:
>>>
>>> [   42.750181] ===============================
>>> [   42.750192] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
>>> [   42.750203] 4.9.0-rc3-00002-g7b6e7de #3 Not tainted
>>> [   42.750213] -------------------------------
>>> [   42.750225] net/sunrpc/clnt.c:2773 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
>>> [   42.750235] 
>>> [   42.750235] other info that might help us debug this:
>>> [   42.750235] 
>>> [   42.750246] 
>>> [   42.750246] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
>>> [   42.750257] 1 lock held by mount.nfs4/6440:
>>> [   42.750278]  #0: 
>>> [   42.750299]  (
>>> [   42.750319] &(&nn->nfs_client_lock)->rlock
>>> [   42.750340] ){+.+...}
>>> [   42.750362] , at: 
>>> [   42.750372] [<ffffffff813012b5>] nfs_get_client+0x105/0x5e0
>>> [   42.750383] 
>>> [   42.750383] stack backtrace:
>>> [   42.750394] CPU: 0 PID: 6440 Comm: mount.nfs4 Not tainted 4.9.0-rc3-00002-g7b6e7de #3
>>> [   42.750406] Hardware name: Intel Corporation PURLEY/PURLEY, BIOS PLYDCRB1.MBH.0096.D23.1608240105 08/24/2016
>>> [   42.750429]  ffffc9000092fa68 ffffffff8150730f ffff88014ec8da40 0000000000000001
>>> [   42.750452]  ffffc9000092fa98 ffffffff810bc3f7 ffff880150b0b228 ffff88015068dbb0
>>> [   42.750475]  ffffc9000092fb38 ffff88014fc99180 ffffc9000092fac0 ffffffff81b243e5
>>> [   42.750486] Call Trace:
>>> [   42.750498]  [<ffffffff8150730f>] dump_stack+0x67/0x98
>>> [   42.750511]  [<ffffffff810bc3f7>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
>>> [   42.750524]  [<ffffffff81b243e5>] rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_has_addr+0x115/0x150
>>> [   42.750536]  [<ffffffff813013f4>] nfs_get_client+0x244/0x5e0
>>> [   42.750549]  [<ffffffff813012ac>] ? nfs_get_client+0xfc/0x5e0
>>> [   42.750561]  [<ffffffff813568f8>] nfs4_set_client+0x98/0x130
>>> [   42.750574]  [<ffffffff8135872e>] nfs4_create_server+0x13e/0x390
>>> [   42.750588]  [<ffffffff8134cd0e>] nfs4_remote_mount+0x2e/0x60
>>> [   42.750600]  [<ffffffff811f3a29>] mount_fs+0x39/0x170
>>> [   42.750614]  [<ffffffff81214a0b>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6b/0x150
>>> [   42.750626]  [<ffffffff8134cbec>] ? nfs_do_root_mount+0x3c/0xc0
>>> [   42.750639]  [<ffffffff8134cc36>] nfs_do_root_mount+0x86/0xc0
>>> [   42.750652]  [<ffffffff8134d014>] nfs4_try_mount+0x44/0xc0
>>> [   42.750664]  [<ffffffff81302097>] ? get_nfs_version+0x27/0x90
>>> [   42.750677]  [<ffffffff81310f8c>] nfs_fs_mount+0x4ac/0xd80
>>> [   42.750689]  [<ffffffff810bb938>] ? lockdep_init_map+0x88/0x1f0
>>> [   42.750701]  [<ffffffff81311ac0>] ? nfs_clone_super+0x130/0x130
>>> [   42.750713]  [<ffffffff8130f300>] ? param_set_portnr+0x70/0x70
>>> [   42.750726]  [<ffffffff811f3a29>] mount_fs+0x39/0x170
>>> [   42.750740]  [<ffffffff81214a0b>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6b/0x150
>>> [   42.750752]  [<ffffffff812176f1>] do_mount+0x1f1/0xd10
>>> [   42.750765]  [<ffffffff81217441>] ? copy_mount_options+0xa1/0x140
>>> [   42.750777]  [<ffffffff81218543>] SyS_mount+0x83/0xd0
>>> [   42.750790]  [<ffffffff81002abc>] do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x130
>>> [   42.750802]  [<ffffffff81c479a4>] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
>>>
>>> This rcu_dereference_check() was introduced by the following commit:
>>>
>>> commit 39e5d2df959dd4aea81fa33d765d2a5cc67a0512
>>> Author: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com>
>>> Date:   Fri Sep 9 09:22:25 2016 -0400
>>>
>>>     SUNRPC search xprt switch for sockaddr
>>>     
>>>     Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Ross
>>
>> Thanks Ross,

Hi Ross,

Can you try this patch and let me know if it helps:

http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=anna/linux-nfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=bb29dd84333a96f309c6d0f88b285b5b78927058

I'm planning on sending it to Linus soon, so it should be in rc5.

Anna

>>
>> ----------------------8<----------------------
>> bool rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_has_addr(struct rpc_clnt *clnt,
>>                                    const struct sockaddr *sap)
>> {
>>         struct rpc_xprt_switch *xps;
>>         bool ret;
>>
>>         xps = rcu_dereference(clnt->cl_xpi.xpi_xpswitch);
>>
>>         rcu_read_lock();
>>         ret = rpc_xprt_switch_has_addr(xps, sap);
>>         rcu_read_unlock();
>>         return ret;
>> }
>> ----------------------8<----------------------
>>
>> Looks like the simple fix is to just move that rcu_dereference call
>> inside the rcu_read_lock there.
>>
> 
> Hmm...that said though, there are some other suspicious accesses
> of xpi_xpswitch. Looks like these are called without the rcu_read_lock
> clearly being held:
> 
> rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_add_xprt
> rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_put
> 
> ...though it's possible I missed something there.
>