From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH net v2] vlan: Fix lockdep warning when vlan dev handle notification
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:22:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5321165A.1000208@huawei.com> (raw)
When I open the LOCKDEP config and run these steps:
modprobe 8021q
vconfig add eth2 20
vconfig add eth2.20 30
ifconfig eth2 xx.xx.xx.xx
then the Call Trace happened:
[32524.386288] =============================================
[32524.386293] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[32524.386298] 3.14.0-rc2-0.7-default+ #35 Tainted: G O
[32524.386302] ---------------------------------------------
[32524.386306] ifconfig/3103 is trying to acquire lock:
[32524.386310] (&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key/1){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff814275f4>] dev_mc_sync+0x64/0xb0
[32524.386326]
[32524.386326] but task is already holding lock:
[32524.386330] (&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key/1){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff8141af83>] dev_set_rx_mode+0x23/0x40
[32524.386341]
[32524.386341] other info that might help us debug this:
[32524.386345] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[32524.386345]
[32524.386350] CPU0
[32524.386352] ----
[32524.386354] lock(&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key/1);
[32524.386359] lock(&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key/1);
[32524.386364]
[32524.386364] *** DEADLOCK ***
[32524.386364]
[32524.386368] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[32524.386368]
[32524.386373] 2 locks held by ifconfig/3103:
[32524.386376] #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81431d42>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x20
[32524.386387] #1: (&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key/1){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff8141af83>] dev_set_rx_mode+0x23/0x40
[32524.386398]
[32524.386398] stack backtrace:
[32524.386403] CPU: 1 PID: 3103 Comm: ifconfig Tainted: G O 3.14.0-rc2-0.7-default+ #35
[32524.386409] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2007
[32524.386414] ffffffff81ffae40 ffff8800d9625ae8 ffffffff814f68a2 ffff8800d9625bc8
[32524.386421] ffffffff810a35fb ffff8800d8a8d9d0 00000000d9625b28 ffff8800d8a8e5d0
[32524.386428] 000003cc00000000 0000000000000002 ffff8800d8a8e5f8 0000000000000000
[32524.386435] Call Trace:
[32524.386441] [<ffffffff814f68a2>] dump_stack+0x6a/0x78
[32524.386448] [<ffffffff810a35fb>] __lock_acquire+0x7ab/0x1940
[32524.386454] [<ffffffff810a323a>] ? __lock_acquire+0x3ea/0x1940
[32524.386459] [<ffffffff810a4874>] lock_acquire+0xe4/0x110
[32524.386464] [<ffffffff814275f4>] ? dev_mc_sync+0x64/0xb0
[32524.386471] [<ffffffff814fc07a>] _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x2a/0x40
[32524.386476] [<ffffffff814275f4>] ? dev_mc_sync+0x64/0xb0
[32524.386481] [<ffffffff814275f4>] dev_mc_sync+0x64/0xb0
[32524.386489] [<ffffffffa0500cab>] vlan_dev_set_rx_mode+0x2b/0x50 [8021q]
[32524.386495] [<ffffffff8141addf>] __dev_set_rx_mode+0x5f/0xb0
[32524.386500] [<ffffffff8141af8b>] dev_set_rx_mode+0x2b/0x40
[32524.386506] [<ffffffff8141b3cf>] __dev_open+0xef/0x150
[32524.386511] [<ffffffff8141b177>] __dev_change_flags+0xa7/0x190
[32524.386516] [<ffffffff8141b292>] dev_change_flags+0x32/0x80
[32524.386524] [<ffffffff8149ca56>] devinet_ioctl+0x7d6/0x830
[32524.386532] [<ffffffff81437b0b>] ? dev_ioctl+0x34b/0x660
[32524.386540] [<ffffffff814a05b0>] inet_ioctl+0x80/0xa0
[32524.386550] [<ffffffff8140199d>] sock_do_ioctl+0x2d/0x60
[32524.386558] [<ffffffff81401a52>] sock_ioctl+0x82/0x2a0
[32524.386568] [<ffffffff811a7123>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x93/0x590
[32524.386578] [<ffffffff811b2705>] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0x45/0x50
[32524.386586] [<ffffffff811b39e5>] ? __fget_light+0x105/0x110
[32524.386594] [<ffffffff811a76b1>] SyS_ioctl+0x91/0xb0
[32524.386604] [<ffffffff815057e2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
========================================================================
The reason is that all of the vlan dev have the same class key for dev_lock_list,
if we up or down the real dev, the notification will change the state for every
vlan dev in the vlan group, then the vlan dev will hold netif_addr_lock and the
real dev also hold its own netif_addr_lock together, so the warning happened.
The best way to fix the problem is that we should make sure the vlan dev have
a new class key which is different with its real dev.
v1->v2: Convert the vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key to an array of eight elements, which
could support to add 8 vlan id on a same vlan dev, I think it is enough for current
scene, because a netdev's name is limited to IFNAMSIZ which could not hold 8 vlan id,
and the vlan dev would not meet the same class key with its real dev.
The new function vlan_dev_get_lockdep_subkey() will return the subkey and make the vlan
dev could get a suitable class key.
Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
---
net/8021q/vlan_dev.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c b/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
index 566adbf..4ffa6cc 100644
--- a/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
+++ b/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
@@ -504,8 +504,10 @@ static void vlan_dev_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *vlan_dev)
* "super class" of normal network devices; split their locks off into a
* separate class since they always nest.
*/
+
+#define MAX_ADDR_LOCK_SUBKEY 8
static struct lock_class_key vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key;
-static struct lock_class_key vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key;
+static struct lock_class_key vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key[MAX_ADDR_LOCK_SUBKEY];
static void vlan_dev_set_lockdep_one(struct net_device *dev,
struct netdev_queue *txq,
@@ -516,10 +518,34 @@ static void vlan_dev_set_lockdep_one(struct net_device *dev,
*(int *)_subclass);
}
+static int vlan_dev_get_lockdep_subkey(struct net_device *dev, int subclass)
+{
+ int subkey = 0;
+ struct net_device *real_dev;
+
+ if (!subclass)
+ return subkey;
+
+ real_dev = vlan_dev_priv(dev)->real_dev;
+ while(is_vlan_dev(real_dev)) {
+ subkey ++;
+ real_dev = vlan_dev_priv(real_dev)->real_dev;
+ }
+
+ return subkey;
+}
+
static void vlan_dev_set_lockdep_class(struct net_device *dev, int subclass)
{
+ int subkey = vlan_dev_get_lockdep_subkey(dev, subclass);
+
+ if (subkey >= MAX_ADDR_LOCK_SUBKEY) {
+ pr_err("the addr lock subkey is out of range\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
lockdep_set_class_and_subclass(&dev->addr_list_lock,
- &vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key,
+ &vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key[subkey],
subclass);
netdev_for_each_tx_queue(dev, vlan_dev_set_lockdep_one, &subclass);
}
--
1.7.12
next reply other threads:[~2014-03-13 2:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-13 2:22 Ding Tianhong [this message]
2014-03-13 19:52 ` [PATCH net v2] vlan: Fix lockdep warning when vlan dev handle notification David Miller
2014-03-14 1:43 ` Ding Tianhong
2014-03-15 2:02 ` David Miller
2014-03-17 3:08 ` Ding Tianhong
2014-03-27 17:06 ` David Miller
2014-03-28 1:13 ` Ding Tianhong
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=5321165A.1000208@huawei.com \
--to=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=john.r.fastabend@intel.com \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@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.