From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:37:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080617.203703.254889774.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1213759663.25608.33.camel@ymzhang>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1254", Size: 1124 bytes --]
From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:27:43 +0800
> This issue is caused by tcp defer accept. Mostly, process context calls lock_sock
> to apply a sleeping lock. BH (SoftIRQ) context calls bh_lock_sock(_nested) to just apply
> for the sk->sk_lock.slock without sleeping, then do appropriate processing based on
> if sk->sk_lock.owned=0. That works well if both process context and BH context operate
> the same sk at the same time. But with tcp defer accept, it doesn't, because
> process context(for example, in inet_csk_accept) locks the listen sk, while BH
> context (in tcp_v4_rcv, for example) locks the child sk and calls
> tcp_defer_accept_check => inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add => reqsk_queue_add, so there is a race
> to access the listen sock.
>
> Below patch against 2.6.26-rc6 fixes the issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>
We reverted the guilty defer accept changes, please test Linus's
current tree.
ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±þ&ºãø§¶\x17¡Ü¨}©²Æ zÚ&j:+v¨þø\x1e¯ù\x1e®w¥þà2Þ¨èÚ&¢)ß¡«a¶Úÿÿûàz¿äz¹Þú+ùÝ¢jÿwèþ^[f
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:37:03 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080617.203703.254889774.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1213759663.25608.33.camel@ymzhang>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 1158 bytes --]
From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:27:43 +0800
> This issue is caused by tcp defer accept. Mostly, process context calls lock_sock
> to apply a sleeping lock. BH (SoftIRQ) context calls bh_lock_sock(_nested) to just apply
> for the sk->sk_lock.slock without sleeping, then do appropriate processing based on
> if sk->sk_lock.owned==0. That works well if both process context and BH context operate
> the same sk at the same time. But with tcp defer accept, it doesn't, because
> process context(for example, in inet_csk_accept) locks the listen sk, while BH
> context (in tcp_v4_rcv, for example) locks the child sk and calls
> tcp_defer_accept_check => inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add => reqsk_queue_add, so there is a race
> to access the listen sock.
>
> Below patch against 2.6.26-rc6 fixes the issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>
We reverted the guilty defer accept changes, please test Linus's
current tree.
ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±þG«éÿ{ayº\x1dÊÚë,j\a¢f£¢·hïêÿêçz_è®\x03(éÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?¨èÚ&£ø§~á¶iOæ¬z·vØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?I¥
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:37:03 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080617.203703.254889774.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1213759663.25608.33.camel@ymzhang>
From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:27:43 +0800
> This issue is caused by tcp defer accept. Mostly, process context calls lock_sock
> to apply a sleeping lock. BH (SoftIRQ) context calls bh_lock_sock(_nested) to just apply
> for the sk->sk_lock.slock without sleeping, then do appropriate processing based on
> if sk->sk_lock.owned==0. That works well if both process context and BH context operate
> the same sk at the same time. But with tcp defer accept, it doesn't, because
> process context(for example, in inet_csk_accept) locks the listen sk, while BH
> context (in tcp_v4_rcv, for example) locks the child sk and calls
> tcp_defer_accept_check => inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add => reqsk_queue_add, so there is a race
> to access the listen sock.
>
> Below patch against 2.6.26-rc6 fixes the issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>
We reverted the guilty defer accept changes, please test Linus's
current tree.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-18 3:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-13 8:19 IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-13 8:19 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-13 8:19 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-13 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-13 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-13 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-18 3:27 ` IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-18 3:27 ` IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-18 3:27 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-18 3:37 ` David Miller [this message]
2008-06-18 3:37 ` David Miller
2008-06-18 3:37 ` David Miller
2008-06-18 5:12 ` IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-18 5:12 ` IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-18 5:12 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-06-18 5:25 ` IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent David Miller
2008-06-18 5:25 ` IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing David Miller
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=20080617.203703.254889774.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
/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.