From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ding Tianhong Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: neighbour: add neighbour dead check for neigh_timer_handler() Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:59:44 +0800 Message-ID: <529E8C90.3050902@huawei.com> References: <529DE13D.2070509@huawei.com> <1386088121.30495.30.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , Gao feng , YOSHIFUJI Hideaki , "Joe Perches" , Veaceslav Falico , Netdev To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:36328 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754817Ab3LDCBJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:01:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1386088121.30495.30.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2013/12/4 0:28, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:48 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> I have met the oops in Suse11 SP2, the kernel is 2.6.32.59-0.7-default: >> >> [64306.089036] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000008 >> [64306.089343] IP: [] neigh_timer_handler+0x116/0x3b0 >> [64306.089535] PGD 0 >> [64306.089706] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP >> [64306.089935] last sysfs file: /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:03.0/0000:02:00.0/host0/target0:1:0/0:1:0:0/scsi_generic/sg0/dev >> [64306.090142] Die func triggered, code:1 >> [64306.090147] CPU 1 >> [64306.090258] Supported: Yes, External >> [64306.090262] Pid: 58359, comm: socknal_cd04 Tainted: P N 2.6.32.59-0.7-default #1 T3500 G3 >> [64306.090266] RIP: 0010:[] [] neigh_timer_handler+0x116/0x3b0 >> [64306.090272] RSP: 0018:ffff880c273499d8 EFLAGS: 00010206 >> [64306.090275] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8801cddf1500 RCX: ffff8801cddf14f2 >> [64306.090278] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff8805e40d3a28 RDI: ffff8801cddf1500 >> [64306.090281] RBP: ffff8805e40d3a28 R08: ffff8801cddf1530 R09: ffff880c27349b17 >> [64306.090284] R10: 000000000000000e R11: ffffffff812f8e22 R12: ffff880185c0e840 >> [64306.090287] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffff8805e40d3a60 R15: 0000000003484560 >> [64306.090291] FS: 00007f081210e700(0000) GS:ffff880036420000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >> [64306.090295] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b >> [64306.090297] CR2: 0000000000000008 CR3: 0000000001804000 CR4: 00000000000406e0 >> [64306.090301] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 >> [64306.090304] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 >> [64306.090308] Process socknal_cd04 (pid: 58359, threadinfo ffff880c27348000, task ffff880c25d02300) >> [64306.090310] Stack: >> [64306.090426] ffffffff8131f8e0 0000000000000003 ffff8801c189eb40 000000000000000a >> [64306.090437] <0> ffffffff00000000 0000000000000002 ffff880c27349a30 ffffffffa304790c >> [64306.090444] <0> 0000000000000246 000051010a010000 ffffffff81318357 31312d3300007fff >> [64306.090450] <0> ffff880c27349bb8 0248456003484560 ffff8801c189eb40 ffffffff81869300 >> [64306.090456] <0> ffff880185c0e840 ffff8801cddf1514 ffff8805e40d3a28 00000000000000d0 >> [64306.090464] Call Trace: >> >> --------------------------- cut here ------------------------------------- >> >> I found the NULL place int the neigh_timer_handler, the neigh->ops is NULL, >> so the calling of neigh->ops->solicit(neigh, skb) will panic, I found the >> neigh has been freed via the kdump, the so I think the neigh was kfreed while >> the neigh timer handler is running. >> >> The situation is that there are several server in the local lan: >> A: 128.5.10.83 >> B: 128.5.10.85 >> C: 128.5.10.xx >> >> I panic the A by manual, and set B's IP to 128.5.10.83, so send broadcast to tell >> the lan that B is 128.5.10.83, then the B panic, it is hard to appeared again, so >> I only met once. >> >> I think the reason is that: >> >> CPU0 CPU1 >> ----- ----- >> >> call_timer_fn(); >> base->running_timer = neigh->timer; >> neigh_timer_handler(); >> neigh_release(); >> write_lock(&neigh->lock); >> del_timer(neigh->timer); >> write_unlock(&neigh->lock); >> write_lock(&neigh->lock); >> kfree(neigh); > > Your patch would not help if the previous 2 actions are ordered like > that : > > kfree(neigh) > write_lock(&neigh->lock); > > I do not think this patch is correct. > > You need to test _before_ the write_lock() call. > > Agree, I miss it, thanks. I must make sure all pending timer is complete finished and not running on CPUs before kfree the neigh. Regards Ding > > > . >