Received: by 2002:a25:868d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z13csp2882235ybk; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJydMYiS3SPPEKG5uNzWF2lS8eLsbOHnZeg10Rq9Pag4L/EW9kUso4QEHTGdBO48PCdIvTJ X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5918:: with SMTP id h24mr16709290ejq.210.1589304091277; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1589304091; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ihyeXEcel9sDNK1mTkLumclMBPxVnb/lCj58h5mIJ8eg6nMUEiJSuJRH8NGHe9J46n deLuEL97SNtmwgdhECUrb88z+9fRbY+JiHEFrNW/2rrupYzf1ufWzOlULH8nWCvnACyX BYp09P7hOAWVsfCMeYqqifKIG5nqU8LaEPI54YqsqQtTEJhyWA9G+FhesndoKM9P81hD oHlKBDcAtMuwyxbz11fVJW6nGMbw2W4pkIk1FGr2JCtdGRHfsMQnha+OLSyxLTLBFgu7 kZZu/C9sUMU1aV/v+1ccEbXxaIx/KBl8I0eAjrSnbtTMgLmJ7HCuh4/XKbb0eqAmZTxV gqIw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=tXAZoRNX8tZ/6EQMyUYBzacN+LIvXZZRD9xf5drn8ZI=; b=imZ7M67BUNf1TpRDNBxejbO1NwdofUB2CWWH9Ze7pYjFyXJHtCID9tmVO+NgL7UjII BSqIgaTWkaMwHYZiQsyye3PzW8RMNG+qaQ4Ey9QwHaOfkGUSJqkEVBC3BgtTynepgHYV 1dgKyA+L3pIjGkZHjh8BXxW/XjBUmJ5khyL2isnyLxVL7If5GP/zBDsTIRj0kXUGAt6O A10wWmkdh0VCtA7l0pHP/wlT7eZ7zy/Ut9m4mvHhksMcI3OnBvKy0dHLKB/Tv13pvUd5 dGszYbfrOKMoazgje1LAT5Yx5dqUy8DT3ZHmDNjfSmdgI+ARgiCEd0TwXZcT9gTc87Qy k/UA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=jt8V3ism; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c2si6288375edv.547.2020.05.12.10.21.07; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=jt8V3ism; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730286AbgELRRW (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 12 May 2020 13:17:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36104 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725938AbgELRRU (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2020 13:17:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x642.google.com (mail-pl1-x642.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::642]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE4AC061A0C; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x642.google.com with SMTP id s20so5641764plp.6; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:17:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tXAZoRNX8tZ/6EQMyUYBzacN+LIvXZZRD9xf5drn8ZI=; b=jt8V3ismwXLipKUvEGIMwtCvLxCayPzDHUVwVVqdhbu/LlVrfl6jPdX3JP57nZdIsu g4xW2/EOFGSjH2iEfO2iu6UrtEYKUSSCi8jtc4p7a4WOhIQtiVjcmd0NYUN47GMYyKey lSZPZfLD7zkSOMMsjBvDUbCfFvyEJlNMvAXPIfbdCUgGX1JdSXSMBH/7Xk6c59/qzCp2 euoE1gq0j7FvG+cz5REZ4AV0r6ZZDWu4f+u6JGipMwoDzTIdx3QS/nrBf1KUC2kwduH9 B7tFKVIcmhB6HK1jxE7nNtNm5yaqjo6Ad2khV8m1QyAfQctd0Ysiy/GSCN+wqU/BbvG5 tRTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tXAZoRNX8tZ/6EQMyUYBzacN+LIvXZZRD9xf5drn8ZI=; b=XQFUTQKlwCWkeZWtlPHekrhLSnUF/NabR3ZjUutm14tk9DTcpzwyOuXmvZrfUFdVkm Q4MWBJKRfWD+s3BRfBUxdj0vFYgXJqYN2kVw/x7dz7TJUcx6w7WKYQNLY4Ta35c5R0lI lBTJ0EVMzNsMmwHFZLH8ITmop9tsHl47k1GsK6Y66/b+GkTMGQD7ohZIz02kZaW2S0Ap syvncLKPau5crR9fpg48VkSM6yOeYCzoei8+d0S7cUHXQ86r/bG1vkzGvpuAW1xN4P4b cc9rh4MKCmWsJhTsEByS9/ctT4ffWd/KYttT+euXkwY/noYKWSFqzMPC2+LFdRbe8ZVD WJ/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pua7inv1plSXSlaE3SYKCe2p9utL1RTSuvkHed/8ZJat187+pr1S 43O2C9ePsWfTkhkwTzKXUhs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:20ea:: with SMTP id f97mr29734906pjg.157.1589303839987; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from workstation-portable ([103.87.56.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x185sm12451341pfx.155.2020.05.12.10.17.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 May 2020 10:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:47:10 +0530 From: Amol Grover To: Madhuparna Bhowmik Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, kuba@kernel.org, "David S . Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Joel Fernandes , "Paul E . McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2 RESEND] ipmr: Add lockdep expression to ipmr_for_each_table macro Message-ID: <20200512171710.GA3200@workstation-portable> References: <20200509072243.3141-1-frextrite@gmail.com> <20200509072243.3141-2-frextrite@gmail.com> <20200509141938.028fa959@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20200512051705.GB9585@madhuparna-HP-Notebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200512051705.GB9585@madhuparna-HP-Notebook> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:47:05AM +0530, Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sat, 9 May 2020 12:52:44 +0530 Amol Grover wrote: > > > ipmr_for_each_table() uses list_for_each_entry_rcu() for > > > traversing outside of an RCU read-side critical section but > > > under the protection of pernet_ops_rwsem. Hence add the > > > corresponding lockdep expression to silence the following > > > false-positive warning at boot: > > > > Thanks for the fix, the warning has been annoying me as well! > > > > > [ 0.645292] ============================= > > > [ 0.645294] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > > [ 0.645296] 5.5.4-stable #17 Not tainted > > > [ 0.645297] ----------------------------- > > > [ 0.645299] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:136 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > > > please provide a fuller stack trace, it would have helped the review > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amol Grover > > > --- > > > net/ipv4/ipmr.c | 7 ++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c > > > index 99c864eb6e34..950ffe9943da 100644 > > > --- a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c > > > @@ -109,9 +109,10 @@ static void mroute_clean_tables(struct mr_table *mrt, int flags); > > > 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, \ > > > - lockdep_rtnl_is_held()) > > > +#define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \ > > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ > > > + lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || \ > > > + lockdep_is_held(&pernet_ops_rwsem)) > > > > This is a strange condition, IMHO. How can we be fine with either > > lock.. This is supposed to be the writer side lock, one can't have > > two writer side locks.. > > > > I think what is happening is this: > > > > ipmr_net_init() -> ipmr_rules_init() -> ipmr_new_table() > > > > ipmr_new_table() returns an existing table if there is one, but > > obviously none can exist at init. So a better fix would be: > > > > #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \ > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ > > lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || \ > > list_empty(&net->ipv4.mr_tables)) > > Jakub, I agree, this condition looks better (and correct) than the one I proposed. I'll do the changes as necessary. Also, do you want me to add the full trace to the git commit body as well? I omitted it on purpose to not make it messy. > (adding Stephen) > > Hi Jakub, > > Thank you for your suggestion about this patch. > Here is a stack trace for ipmr.c: > > [ 1.515015] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 8192 bind 8192) > [ 1.516790] UDP hash table entries: 512 (order: 3, 49152 bytes, linear) > [ 1.518177] UDP-Lite hash table entries: 512 (order: 3, 49152 bytes, linear) > [ 1.519805] > [ 1.520178] ============================= > [ 1.520982] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > [ 1.521798] 5.7.0-rc2-00006-gb35af6a26b7c6f #1 Not tainted > [ 1.522910] ----------------------------- > [ 1.523671] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:136 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > [ 1.525218] > [ 1.525218] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 1.525218] > [ 1.526731] > [ 1.526731] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > [ 1.528004] 1 lock held by swapper/1: > [ 1.528714] #0: c20be1d8 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: register_pernet_subsys+0xd/0x30 > [ 1.530433] > [ 1.530433] stack backtrace: > [ 1.531262] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.7.0-rc2-00006-gb35af6a26b7c6f #1 > [ 1.532729] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014 > [ 1.534305] Call Trace: > [ 1.534758] ? ipmr_get_table+0x3c/0x70 > [ 1.535430] ? ipmr_new_table+0x1c/0x60 > [ 1.536173] ? ipmr_net_init+0x7b/0x170 > [ 1.536923] ? register_pernet_subsys+0xd/0x30 > [ 1.537810] ? ops_init+0x1a0/0x1e0 > [ 1.538518] ? kmem_cache_create_usercopy+0x28a/0x350 > [ 1.539752] ? register_pernet_operations+0xc9/0x1c0 > [ 1.540630] ? ipv4_offload_init+0x65/0x65 > [ 1.541451] ? register_pernet_subsys+0x19/0x30 > [ 1.542357] ? ip_mr_init+0x28/0xff > [ 1.543079] ? inet_init+0x17b/0x249 > [ 1.543773] ? do_one_initcall+0xc5/0x240 > [ 1.544532] ? parse_args+0x192/0x350 > [ 1.545266] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x2f/0x60 > [ 1.546180] ? trace_initcall_level+0x61/0x93 > [ 1.547061] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x112/0x18a > [ 1.547978] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x12b/0x18a > [ 1.548974] ? rest_init+0x220/0x220 > [ 1.549792] ? kernel_init+0x8/0x100 > [ 1.550548] ? rest_init+0x220/0x220 > [ 1.551288] ? schedule_tail_wrapper+0x6/0x8 > [ 1.552136] ? rest_init+0x220/0x220 > [ 1.552873] ? ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x38 > Thank you for the stacktrace Madhuparna. > ALso, there is a similar warning for ip6mr.c : > > ============================= > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > 5.7.0-rc4-next-20200507-syzkaller #0 Not tainted > ----------------------------- > net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:124 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > other info that might help us debug this: > > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > 1 lock held by swapper/0/1: > #0: ffffffff8a7aae30 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: register_pernet_subsys+0x16/0x40 net/core/net_namespace.c:1257 > > stack backtrace: > CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.7.0-rc4-next-20200507-syzkaller #0 > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 > Call Trace: > __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline] > dump_stack+0x18f/0x20d lib/dump_stack.c:118 > ip6mr_get_table+0x153/0x180 net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:124 > ip6mr_new_table+0x1b/0x70 net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:382 > ip6mr_rules_init net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:236 [inline] > ip6mr_net_init+0x133/0x3f0 net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:1310 > ops_init+0xaf/0x420 net/core/net_namespace.c:151 > __register_pernet_operations net/core/net_namespace.c:1140 [inline] > register_pernet_operations+0x346/0x840 net/core/net_namespace.c:1217 > register_pernet_subsys+0x25/0x40 net/core/net_namespace.c:1258 > ip6_mr_init+0x49/0x152 net/ipv6/ip6mr.c:1363 > inet6_init+0x1d7/0x6dc net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:1037 > do_one_initcall+0x10a/0x7d0 init/main.c:1159 > do_initcall_level init/main.c:1232 [inline] > do_initcalls init/main.c:1248 [inline] > do_basic_setup init/main.c:1268 [inline] > kernel_init_freeable+0x501/0x5ae init/main.c:1454 > kernel_init+0xd/0x1bb init/main.c:1359 > ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:351 > Segment Routing with IPv6 > mip6: Mobile IPv6 > sit: IPv6, IPv4 and MPLS over IPv4 tunneling driver > ip6_gre: GRE over IPv6 tunneling driver > > > Thoughts? > > Do you think a similar fix (the one you suggested) is also applicable > in the ip6mr case. > > Thank you, > Madhuparna