* [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix
@ 2013-12-24 13:19 Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-30 11:32 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-30 11:39 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2013-12-24 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sctp
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(-)
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix
2013-12-24 13:19 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix Daniel Borkmann
@ 2013-12-30 11:32 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-30 11:39 ` Daniel Borkmann
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Wang Weidong @ 2013-12-30 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sctp
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix
2013-12-24 13:19 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-30 11:32 ` Wang Weidong
@ 2013-12-30 11:39 ` Daniel Borkmann
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2013-12-30 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sctp
On 12/30/2013 12:32 PM, Wang Weidong wrote:
> 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:
Thanks Wang, this could either be the result of the TODO comment I posted
for patch 3, or some other issue. Will look into this when I'm back from
vacations, as I planned to continue with the fix anyway.
Thanks again.
Daniel
> ------------
> [ 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
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-12-30 11:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-12-24 13:19 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] sctp accept socket fix Daniel Borkmann
2013-12-30 11:32 ` Wang Weidong
2013-12-30 11:39 ` Daniel Borkmann
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.