All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
	pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org,
	syzbot+6f588c78bf765b62b450@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
	sdf@fomichev.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: don't mix device locking in dev_close_many() calls
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:48:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z_w_M95kn0UFXfDm@mini-arch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250412233011.309762-1-kuba@kernel.org>

On 04/12, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Lockdep found the following dependency:
> 
>   &dev_instance_lock_key#3 -->
>      &rdev->wiphy.mtx -->
>         &net->xdp.lock -->
> 	   &xs->mutex -->
> 	      &dev_instance_lock_key#3
> 
> The first dependency is the problem. wiphy mutex should be outside
> the instance locks. The problem happens in notifiers (as always)
> for CLOSE. We only hold the instance lock for ops locked devices
> during CLOSE, and WiFi netdevs are not ops locked. Unfortunately,
> when we dev_close_many() during netns dismantle we may be holding
> the instance lock of _another_ netdev when issuing a CLOSE for
> a WiFi device.
> 
> Lockdep's "Possible unsafe locking scenario" only prints 3 locks
> and we have 4, plus I think we'd need 3 CPUs, like this:
> 
>        CPU0                 CPU1              CPU2
>        ----                 ----              ----
>   lock(&xs->mutex);
>                        lock(&dev_instance_lock_key#3);
>                                          lock(&rdev->wiphy.mtx);
>                                          lock(&net->xdp.lock);
>                                          lock(&xs->mutex);
>                        lock(&rdev->wiphy.mtx);
>   lock(&dev_instance_lock_key#3);
> 
> Tho, I don't think that's possible as CPU1 and CPU2 would
> be under rtnl_lock. Even if we have per-netns rtnl_lock and
> wiphy can span network namespaces - CPU0 and CPU1 must be
> in the same netns to see dev_instance_lock, so CPU0 can't
> be installing a socket as CPU1 is tearing the netns down.
> 
> Regardless, our expected lock ordering is that wiphy lock
> is taken before instance locks, so let's fix this.
> 
> Go over the ops locked and non-locked devices separately.
> Note that calling dev_close_many() on an empty list is perfectly
> fine. All processing (including RCU syncs) are conditional
> on the list not being empty, already.
> 
> Fixes: 7e4d784f5810 ("net: hold netdev instance lock during rtnetlink operations")
> Reported-by: syzbot+6f588c78bf765b62b450@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>

  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-13 22:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-12 23:30 [PATCH net] net: don't mix device locking in dev_close_many() calls Jakub Kicinski
2025-04-13 22:48 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
2025-04-14 20:12 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=Z_w_M95kn0UFXfDm@mini-arch \
    --to=stfomichev@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=syzbot+6f588c78bf765b62b450@syzkaller.appspotmail.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.