From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: edumazet@google.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "bpf: fix lockdep splat" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:33:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <151308199964211@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
bpf: fix lockdep splat
to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
bpf-fix-lockdep-splat.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From foo@baz Tue Dec 12 13:26:17 CET 2017
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:15:50 -0800
Subject: bpf: fix lockdep splat
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
[ Upstream commit 89ad2fa3f043a1e8daae193bcb5fe34d5f8caf28 ]
pcpu_freelist_pop() needs the same lockdep awareness than
pcpu_freelist_populate() to avoid a false positive.
[ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
switchto-defaul/12508 [HC0[0]:SC0[6]:HE0:SE0] is trying to acquire:
(&htab->buckets[i].lock){......}, at: [<ffffffff9dc099cb>] __htab_percpu_map_update_elem+0x1cb/0x300
and this task is already holding:
(dev_queue->dev->qdisc_class ?: &qdisc_tx_lock#2){+.-...}, at: [<ffffffff9e135848>] __dev_queue_xmit+0
x868/0x1240
which would create a new lock dependency:
(dev_queue->dev->qdisc_class ?: &qdisc_tx_lock#2){+.-...} -> (&htab->buckets[i].lock){......}
but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock:
(dev_queue->dev->qdisc_class ?: &qdisc_tx_lock#2){+.-...}
... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at:
[<ffffffff9db5931b>] __lock_acquire+0x42b/0x1f10
[<ffffffff9db5b32c>] lock_acquire+0xbc/0x1b0
[<ffffffff9da05e38>] _raw_spin_lock+0x38/0x50
[<ffffffff9e135848>] __dev_queue_xmit+0x868/0x1240
[<ffffffff9e136240>] dev_queue_xmit+0x10/0x20
[<ffffffff9e1965d9>] ip_finish_output2+0x439/0x590
[<ffffffff9e197410>] ip_finish_output+0x150/0x2f0
[<ffffffff9e19886d>] ip_output+0x7d/0x260
[<ffffffff9e19789e>] ip_local_out+0x5e/0xe0
[<ffffffff9e197b25>] ip_queue_xmit+0x205/0x620
[<ffffffff9e1b8398>] tcp_transmit_skb+0x5a8/0xcb0
[<ffffffff9e1ba152>] tcp_write_xmit+0x242/0x1070
[<ffffffff9e1baffc>] __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x3c/0xf0
[<ffffffff9e1b3472>] tcp_rcv_established+0x312/0x700
[<ffffffff9e1c1acc>] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x11c/0x200
[<ffffffff9e1c3dc2>] tcp_v4_rcv+0xaa2/0xc30
[<ffffffff9e191107>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0xa7/0x240
[<ffffffff9e191a36>] ip_local_deliver+0x66/0x200
[<ffffffff9e19137d>] ip_rcv_finish+0xdd/0x560
[<ffffffff9e191e65>] ip_rcv+0x295/0x510
[<ffffffff9e12ff88>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x988/0x1020
[<ffffffff9e130641>] __netif_receive_skb+0x21/0x70
[<ffffffff9e1306ff>] process_backlog+0x6f/0x230
[<ffffffff9e132129>] net_rx_action+0x229/0x420
[<ffffffff9da07ee8>] __do_softirq+0xd8/0x43d
[<ffffffff9e282bcc>] do_softirq_own_stack+0x1c/0x30
[<ffffffff9dafc2f5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60
[<ffffffff9dafc3a8>] __local_bh_enable_ip+0xa8/0xb0
[<ffffffff9db4c727>] cpu_startup_entry+0x1c7/0x500
[<ffffffff9daab333>] start_secondary+0x113/0x140
to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
(&head->lock){+.+...}
... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
... [<ffffffff9db5971f>] __lock_acquire+0x82f/0x1f10
[<ffffffff9db5b32c>] lock_acquire+0xbc/0x1b0
[<ffffffff9da05e38>] _raw_spin_lock+0x38/0x50
[<ffffffff9dc0b7fa>] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7a/0xb0
[<ffffffff9dc08b2c>] htab_map_alloc+0x50c/0x5f0
[<ffffffff9dc00dc5>] SyS_bpf+0x265/0x1200
[<ffffffff9e28195f>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x17
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
dev_queue->dev->qdisc_class ?: &qdisc_tx_lock#2 --> &htab->buckets[i].lock --> &head->lock
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&head->lock);
local_irq_disable();
lock(dev_queue->dev->qdisc_class ?: &qdisc_tx_lock#2);
lock(&htab->buckets[i].lock);
<Interrupt>
lock(dev_queue->dev->qdisc_class ?: &qdisc_tx_lock#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
Fixes: e19494edab82 ("bpf: introduce percpu_freelist")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c
@@ -78,8 +78,10 @@ struct pcpu_freelist_node *pcpu_freelist
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node;
+ unsigned long flags;
int orig_cpu, cpu;
+ local_irq_save(flags);
orig_cpu = cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
while (1) {
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
@@ -87,14 +89,16 @@ struct pcpu_freelist_node *pcpu_freelist
node = head->first;
if (node) {
head->first = node->next;
- raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&head->lock, flags);
return node;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
cpu = 0;
- if (cpu == orig_cpu)
+ if (cpu == orig_cpu) {
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
return NULL;
+ }
}
}
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from edumazet@google.com are
queue-4.9/bpf-fix-lockdep-splat.patch
reply other threads:[~2017-12-12 12:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=151308199964211@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.