From: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
To: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:32:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52C159E6.9080802@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1387891183-21169-1-git-send-email-dborkman@redhat.com>
On 2013/12/24 21:19, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> lksctp-tools test suite seems to work just fine with this set.
>
> Found a bit of time, so I continued on this, still on TODO for after Xmas:
>
> - Peeled-off sockets, shall we treat them just like accepted sockets
> and do a flat copy here, or do we want to avoid this for some reasons?
> - Polish up commit messages, further stress tests
>
> Daniel Borkmann (3):
> net: sock: introduce sock_sanitize
> net: sock: add sk_copy_sanitize for use in modules
> net: sctp: use sk_copy_sanitize for accept sockets
>
> include/net/sctp/sctp.h | 4 +-
> include/net/sock.h | 1 +
> net/core/sock.c | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> net/sctp/ipv6.c | 11 ++-
> net/sctp/protocol.c | 13 ++--
> net/sctp/socket.c | 102 +++++++++++++++----------
> 6 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 146 deletions(-)
>
Hi Daniel,
I test them on my machine. I open the LOCKDEP and got the result below:
------------
[ 74.750256] sctp: Hash tables configured (established 52428 bind 52428)
[ 92.173914]
[ 92.173923] ================[ 92.173930] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
[ 92.173938] 3.13.0-rc4-0.27-default+ #2 Not tainted
[ 92.173944] ---------------------------------
[ 92.173953] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
[ 92.173963] test_1_to_1_acc/3321 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
[ 92.173972] (slock-AF_INET){+.?...}, at: [<ffffffff81437f31>] sock_sanitize+0xc1/0x3e0
[ 92.173995] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
[ 92.174003] [<ffffffff810a2546>] mark_irqflags+0xf6/0x190
[ 92.174017] [<ffffffff810a40cc>] __lock_acquire+0x53c/0x670
[ 92.174027] [<ffffffff810a42e2>] lock_acquire+0xe2/0x110
[ 92.174037] [<ffffffff8152a6e1>] _raw_spin_lock+0x31/0x70
[ 92.174050] [<ffffffff814b1763>] tcp_write_timer+0x23/0x90
[ 92.174063] [<ffffffff810599e7>] call_timer_fn+0xb7/0x160
[ 92.174076] [<ffffffff8105a937>] run_timer_softirq+0x267/0x280
[ 92.174087] [<ffffffff810519bb>] __do_softirq+0x11b/0x290
[ 92.174099] [<ffffffff81051c55>] irq_exit+0xd5/0xe0
[ 92.174109] [<ffffffff81032a75>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x45/0x60
[ 92.174121] [<ffffffff81534c6f>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6f/0x80
[ 92.174133] [<ffffffff8100b52e>] arch_cpu_idle+0x1e/0x30
[ 92.174146] [<ffffffff810b5b8b>] cpu_idle_loop+0x7b/0x240
[ 92.174158] [<ffffffff810b5d6e>] cpu_startup_entry+0x1e/0x20
[ 92.174168] [<ffffffff810305ae>] start_secondary+0x7e/0x80
[ 92.174181] irq event stamp: 19389
[ 92.174187] hardirqs last enabled at (19389): [<ffffffff810a2ca3>] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x93/0xd0
[ 92.174202] hardirqs last disabled at (19388): [<ffffffff810a2c3d>] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x2d/0xd0
[ 92.174216] softirqs last enabled at (19370): [<ffffffff81435465>] lock_sock_nested+0x75/0x90
[ 92.174229] softirqs last disabled at (19368): [<ffffffff8152a9d3>] _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x13/0x70
[ 92.174241]
[ 92.174241] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 92.174251] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 92.174251]
[ 92.174260] CPU0
[ 92.174265] ----
[ 92.174270] lock(slock-AF_INET);
[ 92.174277] <Interrupt>
[ 92.174282] lock(slock-AF_INET);
[ 92.174290]
[ 92.174290] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 92.174290]
[ 92.174301] 1 lock held by test_1_to_1_acc/3321:
[ 92.174308] #0: (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0291b46>] sctp_accept+0x36/0xf0 [sctp]
[ 92.174337]
[ 92.174337] stack backtrace:
[ 92.174347] CPU: 3 PID: 3321 Comm: test_1_to_1_acc Not tainted 3.13.0-rc4-0.27-default+ #2
[ 92.174358] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
[ 92.174366] ffffffff821bc6d8 ffff880037583b58 ffffffff81524e7b ffff880037583bb8
[ 92.174381] ffffffff810a1a27 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 ffff880000000001
[ 92.174394] 0000000000000046 ffffffff817d631c 0000000000000004 0000000000000006
[ 92.174408] Call Trace:
[ 92.174419] [<ffffffff81524e7b>] dump_stack+0x6a/0x77
[ 92.174429] [<ffffffff810a1a27>] print_usage_bug+0x197/0x1a0
[ 92.174440] [<ffffffff810a1260>] ? check_usage_forwards+0x110/0x110
[ 92.174451] [<ffffffff810a212c>] mark_lock_irq+0xfc/0x220
[ 92.174461] [<ffffffff810a2375>] mark_lock+0x125/0x200
[ 92.174471] [<ffffffff810a2594>] mark_irqflags+0x144/0x190
[ 92.174481] [<ffffffff810a40cc>] __lock_acquire+0x53c/0x670
[ 92.174491] [<ffffffff810a42e2>] lock_acquire+0xe2/0x110
[ 92.174501] [<ffffffff81437f31>] ? sock_sanitize+0xc1/0x3e0
[ 92.174511] [<ffffffff8152a6e1>] _raw_spin_lock+0x31/0x70
[ 92.174520] [<ffffffff81437f31>] ? sock_sanitize+0xc1/0x3e0
[ 92.174530] [<ffffffff81437f31>] sock_sanitize+0xc1/0x3e0
[ 92.174540] [<ffffffff814382f8>] sk_copy_sanitize+0xa8/0xc0
[ 92.174550] [<ffffffff8143833e>] sk_clone_lock+0x2e/0x40
[ 92.174560] [<ffffffff81096580>] ? bit_waitqueue+0xe0/0xe0
[ 92.174579] [<ffffffffa028db92>] sctp_clone_lock+0x12/0xb0 [sctp]
[ 92.174597] [<ffffffffa027b777>] sctp_v4_create_accept_sk+0x17/0x90 [sctp]
[ 92.174617] [<ffffffffa0291bd3>] sctp_accept+0xc3/0xf0 [sctp]
[ 92.174630] [<ffffffff814cf978>] inet_accept+0x28/0x270
[ 92.174642] [<ffffffff81431d31>] SyS_accept4+0x141/0x1e0
[ 92.174652] [<ffffffff81534047>] ? sysret_check+0x1b/0x56
[ 92.174663] [<ffffffff8142f2db>] SyS_accept+0xb/0x10
[ 92.174672] [<ffffffff81534022>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
-------------------
I am not sure what happen to it, So I post it here.
Regards,
Wang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-30 11:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-24 13:19 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-30 11:32 ` Wang Weidong [this message]
2013-12-30 11:39 ` Daniel Borkmann
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=52C159E6.9080802@huawei.com \
--to=wangweidong1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-sctp@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.