From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Nagendra Tomar <tomer_iisc@yahoo.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.35.7] net: Fix the condition passed to sk_wait_event()
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:27:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1286008051.2582.846.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <667106.4951.qm@web53706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Le samedi 02 octobre 2010 à 01:22 -0700, Nagendra Tomar a écrit :
> Resending ...
>
>
> The condition (3rd arg) passed to sk_wait_event() in sk_stream_wait_memory() and sk_stream_wait_connect() are incorrect.
> The incorrect check in sk_stream_wait_memory() causes the following soft lockup in tcp_sendmsg() when the global tcp memory pool has exhausted. The check in sk_stream_wait_connect() was found by code audit.
>
>
> >>> snip <<<
>
> localhost kernel: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 11s! [sshd:6429]
> localhost kernel: CPU 3:
> localhost kernel: RIP: 0010:[sk_stream_wait_memory+0xcd/0x200] [sk_stream_wait_memory+0xcd/0x200] sk_stream_wait_memory+0xcd/0x200
> localhost kernel: Call Trace:
> localhost kernel: [sk_stream_wait_memory+0x1b1/0x200] sk_stream_wait_memory+0x1b1/0x200
> localhost kernel: [<ffffffff802557c0>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> localhost kernel: [ipv6:tcp_sendmsg+0x6e6/0xe90] tcp_sendmsg+0x6e6/0xce0
> localhost kernel: [sock_aio_write+0x126/0x140] sock_aio_write+0x126/0x140
> localhost kernel: [xfs:do_sync_write+0xf1/0x130] do_sync_write+0xf1/0x130
> localhost kernel: [<ffffffff802557c0>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> localhost kernel: [hrtimer_start+0xe3/0x170] hrtimer_start+0xe3/0x170
> localhost kernel: [vfs_write+0x185/0x190] vfs_write+0x185/0x190
> localhost kernel: [sys_write+0x50/0x90] sys_write+0x50/0x90
> localhost kernel: [system_call+0x7e/0x83] system_call+0x7e/0x83
>
> >>> snip <<<
>
> What is happening is, that the sk_wait_event() condition passed from
> sk_stream_wait_memory() evaluates to true for the case of tcp global memory
> exhaustion. This is because both sk_stream_memory_free() and vm_wait are true which causes sk_wait_event() to *not* call schedule_timeout().
> Hence sk_stream_wait_memory() returns immediately to the caller w/o sleeping.
> This causes the caller to again try allocation, which again fails and again
> calls sk_stream_wait_memory(), and so on.
>
>
Hi Nagendra
> Signed-off-by: Nagendra Singh Tomar <tomer_iisc@yahoo.com>
> ---
> --- linux-2.6.35.7/net/core/stream.c.orig 2010-03-23 23:46:45.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6.35.7/net/core/stream.c 2010-03-24 00:21:09.000000000 +0530
> @@ -73,9 +73,8 @@ int sk_stream_wait_connect(struct sock *
> prepare_to_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> sk->sk_write_pending++;
> done = sk_wait_event(sk, timeo_p,
> - !sk->sk_err &&
> - !((1 << sk->sk_state) &
> - ~(TCPF_ESTABLISHED | TCPF_CLOSE_WAIT)));
> + ((1 << sk->sk_state) &
> + (TCPF_ESTABLISHED | TCPF_CLOSE_WAIT)));
Just wondering why you remove the test on sk->err ?
We want to break the loop If sk->sk_err is set, or state is ESTABLISHED
or CLOSE_WAIT.
> finish_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait);
> sk->sk_write_pending--;
> } while (!done);
> @@ -144,10 +143,9 @@ int sk_stream_wait_memory(struct sock *s
>
> set_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &sk->sk_socket->flags);
> sk->sk_write_pending++;
> - sk_wait_event(sk, ¤t_timeo, !sk->sk_err &&
> - !(sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) &&
> - sk_stream_memory_free(sk) &&
> - vm_wait);
> + sk_wait_event(sk, ¤t_timeo, sk->sk_err ||
> + (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) ||
> + (sk_stream_memory_free(sk) && !vm_wait));
> sk->sk_write_pending--;
>
> if (vm_wait) {
>
>
>
Thanks !
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-02 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-02 8:22 [PATCH 2.6.35.7] net: Fix the condition passed to sk_wait_event() Nagendra Tomar
2010-10-02 8:27 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-10-02 8:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-02 11:49 ` Nagendra Tomar
2010-10-02 20:27 ` David Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-10-02 2:55 Nagendra Tomar
2010-10-02 4:27 ` David Miller
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=1286008051.2582.846.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomer_iisc@yahoo.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox