Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

[Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >>
> >>>Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >>>>>drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >>>>>+++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>>>@@ -1111,8 +1111,6 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(str
> >>>>>out:
> >>>>>      write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-       rtnl_unlock();
> >>>>>-
> >>>>
> >>>>Looking at the changeset that added this perhaps the intention
> >>>>is to hold the lock? If so we should add an rtnl_lock to the start
> >>>>of the function.
> >>>
> >>>	Yes, this function needs to hold locks, and more than just
> >>>what's there now.  I believe the following should be correct; I haven't
> >>>tested it, though (I'm supposedly on vacation right now).
> >>>
> >>>	The following change should be correct for the
> >>>bonding_store_primary case discussed in this thread, and also corrects
> >>>the bonding_store_active case which performs similar functions.
> >>>
> >>>	The bond_change_active_slave and bond_select_active_slave
> >>>functions both require rtnl, bond->lock for read and curr_slave_lock for
> >>>write_bh, and no other locks.  This is so that the lower level
> >>>mode-specific functions can release locks down to just rtnl in order to
> >>>call, e.g., dev_set_mac_address with the locks it expects (rtnl only).
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>index 11b76b3..28a2d80 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>@@ -1075,7 +1075,10 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct device
> >>>*d,
> >>>	struct slave *slave;
> >>>	struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
> >>>
> >>>-	write_lock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>+	rtnl_lock();
> >>>+	read_lock(&bond->lock);
> >>>+	write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
F
> >>>+
> >>>	if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)) {
> >>>		printk(KERN_INFO DRV_NAME
> >>>		       ": %s: Unable to set primary slave; %s is in mode
> >>>		       %d\n",
> >>>@@ -1109,8 +1112,8 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct device
> >>>*d,
> >>>		}
> >>>	}
> >>>out:
> >>>-	write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>-
> >>>+	write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >>>+	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> >>>	rtnl_unlock();
> >>>
> >>>	return count;
> >>>@@ -1190,7 +1193,8 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_active_slave(struct
> >>>device *d,
> >>>	struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
> >>>
> >>>	rtnl_lock();
> >>>-	write_lock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>+	read_lock(&bond->lock);
> >>>+	write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >>>
> >>>	if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)) {
> >>>		printk(KERN_INFO DRV_NAME
> >>>@@ -1247,7 +1251,8 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_active_slave(struct
> >>>device *d,
> >>>		}
> >>>	}
> >>>out:
> >>>-	write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >>>+	write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> >>>+	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> >>>	rtnl_unlock();
> >>>
> >>>	return count;
> >>
> >>Vanilla 2.6.24-rc5 plus this patch:
> >>
> >>=========================================================
> >>[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> >>2.6.24-rc5 #1
> >>---------------------------------------------------------
> >>events/0/9 just changed the state of lock:
> >> (&mc->mca_lock){-+..}, at: [<c0411c7a>] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x130/0x1fb
> >>but this lock took another, soft-read-irq-unsafe lock in the past:
> >> (&bond->lock){-.--}
> >>
> >>and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Grrr, I should have seen that -- sorry.  Try your luck with this instead:
> <CUT>
> 
> No luck.
> 
> bonding: bond0: setting mode to active-backup (1).
> bonding: bond0: Setting MII monitoring interval to 100.
> ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): bond0: link is not ready
> bonding: bond0: Adding slave eth0.
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow 
> Control: RX/TX
> bonding: bond0: making interface eth0 the new active one.
> bonding: bond0: first active interface up!
> bonding: bond0: enslaving eth0 as an active interface with an up link.
> bonding: bond0: Adding slave eth1.
> ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): bond0: link becomes ready

<SNIP>

> bonding: bond0: enslaving eth1 as a backup interface with a down link.
> bonding: bond0: Setting eth0 as primary slave.
> bond0: no IPv6 routers present
> 
 
Based on the console log, I'm guessing your initialization scripts use
sysfs to set eth0 as the primary interface for bond0?  Can you confirm?

If you did somehow use sysfs to set the primary device as eth0, I'm
guessing you never see this issue without that line or without this
patch.  Please confirm this as well.

Thanks,

-andy