Re: Lockdep warning after c0feea594e058223973db94c1c32a830c9807c86

Martin KaFai Lau
2022-10-13T16:46:14Z

On 10/12/22 2:08 PM, sdf@google.com wrote:
> Hi John & Jakub,
>
> Upstream commit c0feea594e05 ("workqueue: don't skip lockdep work
> dependency in cancel_work_sync()") seems to trigger the following
> lockdep warning during test_prog's sockmap_listen:
>
> [  +0.003631] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [  +0.003647] 6.0.0-dbx-DEV #10 Not tainted
> [  +0.002402] ------------------------------------------------------
> [  +0.003685] kworker/1:0/23 is trying to acquire lock:
> [  +0.003012] ffff888100b1e3f0 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> tcp_sendpage+0x28/0x80
> [  +0.004655]
>               but task is already holding lock:
> [  +0.003434] ffff88810642c360 (&psock->work_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> sk_psock_backlog+0x2e/0x370
> [  +0.005043]
>               which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> [  +0.004792]
>               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [  +0.004397]
>               -> #2 (&psock->work_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [  +0.003732]        __mutex_lock_common+0xdf/0xe70
> [  +0.002958]        mutex_lock_nested+0x20/0x30
> [  +0.002685]        sk_psock_backlog+0x2e/0x370
> [  +0.002689]        process_one_work+0x22c/0x3b0
> [  +0.002815]        worker_thread+0x21b/0x400
> [  +0.002652]        kthread+0xf7/0x110
> [  +0.002406]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [  +0.002512]
>               -> #1 ((work_completion)(&psock->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> [  +0.004457]        __flush_work+0x6b/0xd0
> [  +0.002638]        __cancel_work_timer+0x11a/0x1a0
> [  +0.002973]        cancel_work_sync+0x10/0x20
> [  +0.002724]        sk_psock_stop+0x298/0x2b0
> [  +0.002969]        sock_map_close+0xd8/0x140
> [  +0.002739]        inet_release+0x57/0x80
> [  +0.002475]        sock_close+0x4b/0xe0
> [  +0.002380]        __fput+0x101/0x230
> [  +0.002347]        ____fput+0xe/0x10
> [  +0.002259]        task_work_run+0x5d/0xb0
> [  +0.002535]        exit_to_user_mode_loop+0xd6/0xf0
> [  +0.003019]        exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0xa6/0x100
> [  +0.003201]        syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x5b/0x160
> [  +0.003145]        do_syscall_64+0x49/0x80
> [  +0.002549]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> [  +0.003410]
>               -> #0 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> [  +0.003906]        __lock_acquire+0x16f4/0x30c0
> [  +0.002837]        lock_acquire+0xc5/0x1c0
> [  +0.002599]        lock_sock_nested+0x32/0x80
> [  +0.002690]        tcp_sendpage+0x28/0x80
> [  +0.002435]        inet_sendpage+0x7b/0xe0
> [  +0.002534]        kernel_sendpage+0x5d/0xa0
> [  +0.002709]        skb_send_sock+0x24b/0x2d0
> [  +0.002662]        sk_psock_backlog+0x106/0x370
> [  +0.002908]        process_one_work+0x22c/0x3b0
> [  +0.002736]        worker_thread+0x21b/0x400
> [  +0.002552]        kthread+0xf7/0x110
> [  +0.002252]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [  +0.002480]
>               other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [  +0.004778] Chain exists of:
>                 sk_lock-AF_INET --> (work_completion)(&psock->work) -->
> &psock->work_mutex
>
> [  +0.007265]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [  +0.003496]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [  +0.002717]        ----                    ----
> [  +0.002809]   lock(&psock->work_mutex);
> [  +0.002335]                                lock((work_completion)(&psock->work));
> [  +0.004496]                                lock(&psock->work_mutex);
> [  +0.003766]   lock(sk_lock-AF_INET);
> [  +0.002185]
>                *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> [  +0.003600] 3 locks held by kworker/1:0/23:
> [  +0.002698]  #0: ffff888100055138 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> process_one_work+0x1d6/0x3b0
> [  +0.005552]  #1: ffffc900001e7e58
> ((work_completion)(&psock->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1fc/0x3b0
> [  +0.006085]  #2: ffff88810642c360 (&psock->work_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> sk_psock_backlog+0x2e/0x370
> [  +0.005424]
>               stack backtrace:
> [  +0.002689] CPU: 1 PID: 23 Comm: kworker/1:0 Not tainted 6.0.0-dbx-DEV #10
> [  +0.004086] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
> rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> [  +0.006806] Workqueue: events sk_psock_backlog
> [  +0.002699] Call Trace:
> [  +0.001577]  <TASK>
> [  +0.001350]  dump_stack_lvl+0x69/0xaa
> [  +0.002225]  dump_stack+0x10/0x12
> [  +0.002051]  print_circular_bug+0x289/0x290
> [  +0.002531]  check_noncircular+0x12c/0x140
> [  +0.002578]  __lock_acquire+0x16f4/0x30c0
> [  +0.002483]  ? ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [  +0.002297]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
> [  +0.002869]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xf8/0x160
> [  +0.002511]  lock_acquire+0xc5/0x1c0
> [  +0.002165]  ? tcp_sendpage+0x28/0x80
> [  +0.002367]  lock_sock_nested+0x32/0x80
> [  +0.002401]  ? tcp_sendpage+0x28/0x80
> [  +0.002262]  tcp_sendpage+0x28/0x80
> [  +0.002148]  inet_sendpage+0x7b/0x[   12.231432] sysrq: Power Off
> e0
> [  +0.002202[   12.234545] kvm: exiting hardware virtualization
> ]  kernel_sendpage+0x5d/0xa0
> [  +0.002277]  skb_send_sock+0x24b/0x2d0
> [  +0.002278]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x35/0x60
> [  +0.003030]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
> [  +0.002861]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x97/0x140
> [  +0.002685]  ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x47/0x50
> [  +0.002576]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x40/0x60
> [  +0.003207]  sk_psock_backlog+0x106/0x370
> [  +0.002476]  process_one_work+0x22c/0x3b0
> [  +0.002473]  worker_thread+0x21b/0x400
> [  +0.002335]  kthread+0xf7/0x110
> [  +0.001954]  ? rcu_lock_release+0x20/0x20
> [  +0.002444]  ? kthread_blkcg+0x30/0x30
> [  +0.002325]  ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [  +0.002221]  </TASK>
>
> This is on bpf-next:
>
> commit d31ada3b511141f4b78cae5a05cc2dad887c40b7 (HEAD -> bpf-next,
> bpf-next/master)
> Author: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
> Date:   Tue Oct 11 11:52:55 2022 -0500
>
>     selftests/bpf: Alphabetize DENYLISTs
>
> Are you ware? Any idea what's wrong?
> Is there some stable fix I'm missing in bpf-next?

fwiw, CI has been hitting it pretty often also:
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3238290042/jobs/5306551130#step:6:5522

Unless bpf-next is missing some fixes, this needs to be addressed.