[PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[Bjorn Helgaas]

netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device.  If it
fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set.  If we call
netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
dev_put(), which decrements the refcount an extra time.

It's questionable to call netpoll_cleanup() after netpoll_setup() fails,
but it can be difficult to find the problem, and we can easily avoid it in
this case.  The extra decrements can lead to hangs like this:

  unregister_netdevice: waiting for bond0 to become free. Usage count = -3

Set and clear np->dev at the points where we dev_hold() and dev_put() the
device.

Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
---
 net/core/netpoll.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
index 94acfc8..a57bd17 100644
--- a/net/core/netpoll.c
+++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
@@ -603,7 +603,6 @@ int __netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np, struct net_device *ndev)
 	const struct net_device_ops *ops;
 	int err;
 
-	np->dev = ndev;
 	strlcpy(np->dev_name, ndev->name, IFNAMSIZ);
 	INIT_WORK(&np->cleanup_work, netpoll_async_cleanup);
 
@@ -670,6 +669,7 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 	dev_hold(ndev);
+	np->dev = ndev;
 
 	if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(ndev)) {
 		np_err(np, "%s is a slave device, aborting\n", np->dev_name);
@@ -770,6 +770,7 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np)
 	return 0;
 
 put:
+	np->dev = NULL;
 	dev_put(ndev);
 unlock:
 	rtnl_unlock();

Re: [PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[Neil Horman]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device.  If it
> fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set.  If we call
> netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
> dev_put(), which decrements the refcount an extra time.
> 
> It's questionable to call netpoll_cleanup() after netpoll_setup() fails,
> but it can be difficult to find the problem, and we can easily avoid it in
> this case.  The extra decrements can lead to hangs like this:
> 
>   unregister_netdevice: waiting for bond0 to become free. Usage count = -3
> 
> Set and clear np->dev at the points where we dev_hold() and dev_put() the
> device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> ---
>  net/core/netpoll.c |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> index 94acfc8..a57bd17 100644
> --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> @@ -603,7 +603,6 @@ int __netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np, struct net_device *ndev)
>  	const struct net_device_ops *ops;
>  	int err;
>  
> -	np->dev = ndev;
>  	strlcpy(np->dev_name, ndev->name, IFNAMSIZ);
>  	INIT_WORK(&np->cleanup_work, netpoll_async_cleanup);
>  
> @@ -670,6 +669,7 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np)
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
>  	dev_hold(ndev);
> +	np->dev = ndev;
>  
>  	if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(ndev)) {
>  		np_err(np, "%s is a slave device, aborting\n", np->dev_name);
> @@ -770,6 +770,7 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np)
>  	return 0;
>  
>  put:
> +	np->dev = NULL;
>  	dev_put(ndev);
>  unlock:
>  	rtnl_unlock();
> 

Is this safe for stacked devices?  It makes good sense for the typical case, but
if you attempt to setup a netpoll client on a bridge/bond/vlan, etc, the lower
device will get its own netpoll struct registered and have no associated np->dev
pointer.  It not be a real problem in practice, But you probably want to check
to make sure that stacked  devices which recursively call the netpoll api don't
do anyting with the np->dev pointer.

Regards
Neil

Re: [PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 07:33:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device.  If it
> > fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set.  If we call
> > netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
> > dev_put(), which decrements the refcount an extra time.
> > 
> > It's questionable to call netpoll_cleanup() after netpoll_setup() fails,
> > but it can be difficult to find the problem, and we can easily avoid it in
> > this case.  The extra decrements can lead to hangs like this:
> > 
> >   unregister_netdevice: waiting for bond0 to become free. Usage count = -3
> > 
> > Set and clear np->dev at the points where we dev_hold() and dev_put() the
> > device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/netpoll.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/core/netpoll.c b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > index 94acfc8..a57bd17 100644
> > --- a/net/core/netpoll.c
> > +++ b/net/core/netpoll.c
> > @@ -603,7 +603,6 @@ int __netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np, struct net_device *ndev)
> >  	const struct net_device_ops *ops;
> >  	int err;
> >  
> > -	np->dev = ndev;
> >  	strlcpy(np->dev_name, ndev->name, IFNAMSIZ);
> >  	INIT_WORK(&np->cleanup_work, netpoll_async_cleanup);
> >  
> > @@ -670,6 +669,7 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np)
> >  		goto unlock;
> >  	}
> >  	dev_hold(ndev);
> > +	np->dev = ndev;
> >  
> >  	if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(ndev)) {
> >  		np_err(np, "%s is a slave device, aborting\n", np->dev_name);
> > @@ -770,6 +770,7 @@ int netpoll_setup(struct netpoll *np)
> >  	return 0;
> >  
> >  put:
> > +	np->dev = NULL;
> >  	dev_put(ndev);
> >  unlock:
> >  	rtnl_unlock();
> > 
> 
> Is this safe for stacked devices?  It makes good sense for the typical case, but
> if you attempt to setup a netpoll client on a bridge/bond/vlan, etc, the lower
> device will get its own netpoll struct registered and have no associated np->dev
> pointer.  It not be a real problem in practice, But you probably want to check
> to make sure that stacked  devices which recursively call the netpoll api don't
> do anyting with the np->dev pointer.

You're right, there is an issue here.  I reproduced a problem with a
bond device.  bond_netpoll_setup() calls __netpoll_setup() directly
(not netpoll_setup()).  I'll debug it more; just wanted to let you
know there *is* a problem with this patch.

Bjorn

Re: [PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[David Miller]

From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:46:39 -0500

> You're right, there is an issue here.  I reproduced a problem with a
> bond device.  bond_netpoll_setup() calls __netpoll_setup() directly
> (not netpoll_setup()).  I'll debug it more; just wanted to let you
> know there *is* a problem with this patch.

I bet that's why the assignment to np->dev and the reference counting
were separated in the first place :-/

Indeed, commit 30fdd8a082a00126a6feec994e43e8dc12f5bccb:

commit 30fdd8a082a00126a6feec994e43e8dc12f5bccb
Author: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Date:   Tue Jul 17 05:22:35 2012 +0000

    netpoll: move np->dev and np->dev_name init into __netpoll_setup()
    
    Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Re: [PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[Neil Horman]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:16:36PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:46:39 -0500
> 
> > You're right, there is an issue here.  I reproduced a problem with a
> > bond device.  bond_netpoll_setup() calls __netpoll_setup() directly
> > (not netpoll_setup()).  I'll debug it more; just wanted to let you
> > know there *is* a problem with this patch.
> 
> I bet that's why the assignment to np->dev and the reference counting
> were separated in the first place :-/
> 
> Indeed, commit 30fdd8a082a00126a6feec994e43e8dc12f5bccb:
> 
> commit 30fdd8a082a00126a6feec994e43e8dc12f5bccb
> Author: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
> Date:   Tue Jul 17 05:22:35 2012 +0000
> 
>     netpoll: move np->dev and np->dev_name init into __netpoll_setup()
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

We probably just want to balance the setting/clearing of np->dev in
__netpoll_setup, so that any error return (that would result in a drop of the
refcount in netpoll_setup) correlates to a setting of np->dev to NULL in
__netpoll_setup. That leaves us with the problem of having to watch for future
imbalances as you mentioned previously Dave, but it seems a potential problem
tomorrow is preferable to an actual problem today.

Another option would be to move the dev_hold/put into __netpoll_setup, but doing
so would I think require some additional refactoring in netpoll_setup.  Namely
that we would still need a dev_hold/put in netpoll_setup to prevent the device
from being removed during the period where we release the rtnl lock in the if
(!netif_running(ndev)) clause. We would have to hold the device, unlock rtnl,
then put the device after re-aquiring rtnl at the end of that if block.

Neil

Re: [PATCH v2] netpoll: Fix extra refcount release in netpoll_cleanup()

[David Miller]

From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:56:21 -0500

> netpoll_setup() does a dev_hold() on np->dev, the netpoll device.  If it
> fails, it correctly does a dev_put() but leaves np->dev set.  If we call
> netpoll_cleanup() after the failure, np->dev is still set so we do another
> dev_put(), which decrements the refcount an extra time.
> 
> It's questionable to call netpoll_cleanup() after netpoll_setup() fails,
> but it can be difficult to find the problem, and we can easily avoid it in
> this case.  The extra decrements can lead to hangs like this:
> 
>   unregister_netdevice: waiting for bond0 to become free. Usage count = -3
> 
> Set and clear np->dev at the points where we dev_hold() and dev_put() the
> device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>

Looks good, applied and queued up for -stable.

But you probably do want to look into the stacked device issue
Neil pointed out.

Thanks!