From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
Moshe Shemesh <moshe@nvidia.com>
Subject: [net 05/11] net/mlx5: Fix possible deadlock on mlx5e_tx_timeout_work
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 23:55:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221103065547.181550-6-saeed@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221103065547.181550-1-saeed@kernel.org>
From: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@nvidia.com>
Due to the cited patch, devlink health commands take devlink lock and
this may result in deadlock for mlx5e_tx_reporter as it takes local
state_lock before calling devlink health report and on the other hand
devlink health commands such as diagnose for same reporter take local
state_lock after taking devlink lock (see kernel log below).
To fix it, remove local state_lock from mlx5e_tx_timeout_work() before
calling devlink_health_report() and take care to cancel the work before
any call to close channels, which may free the SQs that should be
handled by the work. Before cancel_work_sync(), use current_work() to
check we are not calling it from within the work, as
mlx5e_tx_timeout_work() itself may close the channels and reopen as part
of recovery flow.
Kernel log:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.0.0-rc3_for_upstream_debug_2022_08_30_13_10 #1 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kworker/u16:2/65 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888122f6c2f8 (&devlink->lock_key#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: devlink_health_report+0x2f1/0x7e0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff888121d20be0 (&priv->state_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x70/0x280 [mlx5_core]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&priv->state_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x12c/0x14b0
mlx5e_rx_reporter_diagnose+0x71/0x700 [mlx5_core]
devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_diagnose_doit+0x212/0xa50
genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0x1e9/0x2f0
genl_rcv_msg+0x2e9/0x530
netlink_rcv_skb+0x11d/0x340
genl_rcv+0x24/0x40
netlink_unicast+0x438/0x710
netlink_sendmsg+0x788/0xc40
sock_sendmsg+0xb0/0xe0
__sys_sendto+0x1c1/0x290
__x64_sys_sendto+0xdd/0x1b0
do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
-> #0 (&devlink->lock_key#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x2c8a/0x6200
lock_acquire+0x1c1/0x550
__mutex_lock+0x12c/0x14b0
devlink_health_report+0x2f1/0x7e0
mlx5e_health_report+0xc9/0xd7 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_reporter_tx_timeout+0x2ab/0x3d0 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x1c1/0x280 [mlx5_core]
process_one_work+0x7c2/0x1340
worker_thread+0x59d/0xec0
kthread+0x28f/0x330
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&priv->state_lock);
lock(&devlink->lock_key#2);
lock(&priv->state_lock);
lock(&devlink->lock_key#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
4 locks held by kworker/u16:2/65:
#0: ffff88811a55b138 ((wq_completion)mlx5e#2){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x6e2/0x1340
#1: ffff888101de7db8 ((work_completion)(&priv->tx_timeout_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x70f/0x1340
#2: ffffffff84ce8328 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x53/0x280 [mlx5_core]
#3: ffff888121d20be0 (&priv->state_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x70/0x280 [mlx5_core]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 65 Comm: kworker/u16:2 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc3_for_upstream_debug_2022_08_30_13_10 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Workqueue: mlx5e mlx5e_tx_timeout_work [mlx5_core]
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
check_noncircular+0x278/0x300
? print_circular_bug+0x460/0x460
? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
? __stack_depot_save+0x24c/0x520
? alloc_chain_hlocks+0x228/0x700
__lock_acquire+0x2c8a/0x6200
? register_lock_class+0x1860/0x1860
? kasan_save_stack+0x1e/0x40
? kasan_set_free_info+0x20/0x30
? ____kasan_slab_free+0x11d/0x1b0
? kfree+0x1ba/0x520
? devlink_health_do_dump.part.0+0x171/0x3a0
? devlink_health_report+0x3d5/0x7e0
lock_acquire+0x1c1/0x550
? devlink_health_report+0x2f1/0x7e0
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x400/0x400
? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
__mutex_lock+0x12c/0x14b0
? devlink_health_report+0x2f1/0x7e0
? devlink_health_report+0x2f1/0x7e0
? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x1320/0x1320
? trace_hardirqs_on+0x2d/0x100
? bit_wait_io_timeout+0x170/0x170
? devlink_health_do_dump.part.0+0x171/0x3a0
? kfree+0x1ba/0x520
? devlink_health_do_dump.part.0+0x171/0x3a0
devlink_health_report+0x2f1/0x7e0
mlx5e_health_report+0xc9/0xd7 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_reporter_tx_timeout+0x2ab/0x3d0 [mlx5_core]
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x400/0x400
? mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe+0x1b0/0x1b0 [mlx5_core]
? mlx5e_tx_reporter_timeout_dump+0x70/0x70 [mlx5_core]
? mlx5e_tx_reporter_dump_sq+0x320/0x320 [mlx5_core]
? mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x70/0x280 [mlx5_core]
? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x1320/0x1320
? process_one_work+0x70f/0x1340
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x400/0x400
? lock_downgrade+0x6e0/0x6e0
mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x1c1/0x280 [mlx5_core]
process_one_work+0x7c2/0x1340
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x400/0x400
? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x230/0x230
? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x90/0x90
worker_thread+0x59d/0xec0
? process_one_work+0x1340/0x1340
kthread+0x28f/0x330
? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
</TASK>
Fixes: c90005b5f75c ("devlink: Hold the instance lock in health callbacks")
Signed-off-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
index 364f04309149..09296f1ae448 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
@@ -2954,6 +2954,9 @@ static int mlx5e_switch_priv_channels(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
netif_carrier_off(netdev);
mlx5e_deactivate_priv_channels(priv);
+ /* Once deactivated, new tx_timeout_work won't be initiated. */
+ if (current_work() != &priv->tx_timeout_work)
+ cancel_work_sync(&priv->tx_timeout_work);
old_chs = priv->channels;
priv->channels = *new_chs;
@@ -3106,6 +3109,7 @@ int mlx5e_close_locked(struct net_device *netdev)
netif_carrier_off(priv->netdev);
mlx5e_deactivate_priv_channels(priv);
+ cancel_work_sync(&priv->tx_timeout_work);
mlx5e_close_channels(&priv->channels);
return 0;
@@ -4657,7 +4661,6 @@ static void mlx5e_tx_timeout_work(struct work_struct *work)
int i;
rtnl_lock();
- mutex_lock(&priv->state_lock);
if (!test_bit(MLX5E_STATE_OPENED, &priv->state))
goto unlock;
@@ -4676,7 +4679,6 @@ static void mlx5e_tx_timeout_work(struct work_struct *work)
}
unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&priv->state_lock);
rtnl_unlock();
}
--
2.38.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-03 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-03 6:55 [pull request][net 00/11] mlx5 fixes 2022-11-02 Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 01/11] net/mlx5: Bridge, verify LAG state when adding bond to bridge Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 02/11] net/mlx5: Allow async trigger completion execution on single CPU systems Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 03/11] net/mlx5: E-switch, Set to legacy mode if failed to change switchdev mode Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 04/11] net/mlx5: fw_reset: Don't try to load device in case PCI isn't working Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` Saeed Mahameed [this message]
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 06/11] net/mlx5e: Add missing sanity checks for max TX WQE size Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-04 4:12 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 07/11] net/mlx5e: Fix usage of DMA sync API Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 08/11] net/mlx5e: Fix tc acts array not to be dependent on enum order Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 09/11] net/mlx5e: TC, Fix wrong rejection of packet-per-second policing Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 10/11] net/mlx5e: E-Switch, Fix comparing termination table instance Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-03 6:55 ` [net 11/11] net/mlx5e: TC, Fix slab-out-of-bounds in parse_tc_actions Saeed Mahameed
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=20221103065547.181550-6-saeed@kernel.org \
--to=saeed@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=moshe@nvidia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.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.