[PATCH net V3 0/3] Fixes for IPsec over bonding

[PATCH net V3 0/3] Fixes for IPsec over bonding

[Tariq Toukan]

Hi,

This patchset by Jianbo provides bug fixes for IPsec over bonding
driver.

It adds the missing xdo_dev_state_free API, and fixes "scheduling while
atomic" by using mutex lock instead.

Series generated against:
commit 14ab4792ee12 ("net/tcp: Disable TCP-AO static key after RCU grace period")

Regards,
Tariq

V3:
- Add RCU read lock/unlock for bond_ipsec_add_sa, bond_ipsec_del_sa and bond_ipsec_free_sa.

V2:
- Rebased on top of latest net branch.
- Squashed patch #2 into #1 per Hangbin comment.
- Addressed Hangbin's comments.
- Patch #3 (was #4): Addressed comments by Paolo.

Jianbo Liu (3):
  bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion
  bonding: extract the use of real_device into local variable
  bonding: change ipsec_lock from spin lock to mutex

 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++------------
 include/net/bonding.h           |   2 +-
 2 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)

-- 
2.44.0

[PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Tariq Toukan]

From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>

Add this implementation for bonding, so hardware resources can be
freed after xfrm state is deleted.

And call it when deleting all SAs from old active real interface.

Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 1cd92c12e782..eb5e43860670 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -581,6 +581,8 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 				   __func__);
 		} else {
 			slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
+			if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
+				slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
 		}
 		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
 	}
@@ -588,6 +590,35 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
+static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
+{
+	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
+	struct net_device *real_dev;
+	struct bonding *bond;
+	struct slave *slave;
+
+	if (!bond_dev)
+		return;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
+	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
+	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	if (!slave)
+		return;
+
+	if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
+		return;
+
+	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
+
+	if (real_dev && real_dev->xfrmdev_ops &&
+	    real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
+		real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(xs);
+}
+
 /**
  * bond_ipsec_offload_ok - can this packet use the xfrm hw offload
  * @skb: current data packet
@@ -632,6 +663,7 @@ static bool bond_ipsec_offload_ok(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *xs)
 static const struct xfrmdev_ops bond_xfrmdev_ops = {
 	.xdo_dev_state_add = bond_ipsec_add_sa,
 	.xdo_dev_state_delete = bond_ipsec_del_sa,
+	.xdo_dev_state_free = bond_ipsec_free_sa,
 	.xdo_dev_offload_ok = bond_ipsec_offload_ok,
 };
 #endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
-- 
2.44.0

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Hangbin Liu]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:55AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> 
> Add this implementation for bonding, so hardware resources can be
> freed after xfrm state is deleted.
> 
> And call it when deleting all SAs from old active real interface.
> 
> Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 1cd92c12e782..eb5e43860670 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -581,6 +581,8 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  				   __func__);
>  		} else {
>  			slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> +			if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> +				slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
>  		}
>  		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
>  	}
> @@ -588,6 +590,35 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
> +static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
> +	struct bonding *bond;
> +	struct slave *slave;
> +
> +	if (!bond_dev)
> +		return;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> +	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> +	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	if (!slave)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
> +		return;
> +
> +	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
> +
> +	if (real_dev && real_dev->xfrmdev_ops &&
> +	    real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> +		real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(xs);

Do we need to check netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev) here?

Thanks
Hangbin

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jianbo Liu]

On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 16:45 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:55AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > Add this implementation for bonding, so hardware resources can be
> > freed after xfrm state is deleted.
> > 
> > And call it when deleting all SAs from old active real interface.
> > 
> > Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
> > Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 32
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > index 1cd92c12e782..eb5e43860670 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > @@ -581,6 +581,8 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct
> > bonding *bond)
> >                                    __func__);
> >                 } else {
> >                         slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > >xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> > +                       if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > >xdo_dev_state_free)
> > +                               slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > >xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
> >                 }
> >                 ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
> >         }
> > @@ -588,6 +590,35 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct
> > bonding *bond)
> >         rcu_read_unlock();
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> > +{
> > +       struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> > +       struct net_device *real_dev;
> > +       struct bonding *bond;
> > +       struct slave *slave;
> > +
> > +       if (!bond_dev)
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > +       rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > +       if (!slave)
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
> > +
> > +       if (real_dev && real_dev->xfrmdev_ops &&
> > +           real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> > +               real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(xs);
> 
> Do we need to check netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev) here?

Probably no need, because we will not call xdo_dev_state_free only. It
is called after xdo_dev_state_delete.

> 
> Thanks
> Hangbin

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Hangbin Liu]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:55AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> 
> Add this implementation for bonding, so hardware resources can be
> freed after xfrm state is deleted.
> 
> And call it when deleting all SAs from old active real interface.
> 
> Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 1cd92c12e782..eb5e43860670 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -581,6 +581,8 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  				   __func__);
>  		} else {
>  			slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> +			if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> +				slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
>  		}
>  		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
>  	}
> @@ -588,6 +590,35 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
> +static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
> +	struct bonding *bond;
> +	struct slave *slave;
> +
> +	if (!bond_dev)
> +		return;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> +	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> +	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	if (!slave)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
> +		return;
> +
> +	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
> +
> +	if (real_dev && real_dev->xfrmdev_ops &&
> +	    real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> +		real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(xs);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * bond_ipsec_offload_ok - can this packet use the xfrm hw offload
>   * @skb: current data packet
> @@ -632,6 +663,7 @@ static bool bond_ipsec_offload_ok(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *xs)
>  static const struct xfrmdev_ops bond_xfrmdev_ops = {
>  	.xdo_dev_state_add = bond_ipsec_add_sa,
>  	.xdo_dev_state_delete = bond_ipsec_del_sa,
> +	.xdo_dev_state_free = bond_ipsec_free_sa,
>  	.xdo_dev_offload_ok = bond_ipsec_offload_ok,
>  };
>  #endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
> -- 
> 2.44.0
> 

Reviewed-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:03:55 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
> +static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
> +	struct bonding *bond;
> +	struct slave *slave;
> +
> +	if (!bond_dev)
> +		return;

can xs->xso.dev be NULL during the dev_free_state callback?

> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> +	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> +	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();

What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock here?

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jianbo Liu]

On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 17:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:03:55 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > +static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> > +{
> > +       struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> > +       struct net_device *real_dev;
> > +       struct bonding *bond;
> > +       struct slave *slave;
> > +
> > +       if (!bond_dev)
> > +               return;
> 
> can xs->xso.dev be NULL during the dev_free_state callback?

Shouldn't be NULL because bond_ipsec_del_sa is called before and xs is
removed from bond->ipsec_list, so xs->xso.dev is kept unless it's
cleared in dev's xdo_dev_state_delete callback.

> 
> > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > +       rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock here?

I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).

Thanks!
Jianbo

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:58:12 +0000 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > +       rcu_read_unlock();  
> > 
> > What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock here?  
> 
> I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).

Please explain it in the commit message in more certain terms.

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jianbo Liu]

On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 07:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:58:12 +0000 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > > > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();  
> > > 
> > > What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock here?  
> > 
> > I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).
> 
> Please explain it in the commit message in more certain terms.

Sorry, I don't understand. The real_dev is saved in xs->xso.real_dev,
and also bond's slave. It's straightforward. What else do I need to
explain?

Thanks!
Jianbo

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Hangbin Liu]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:03:58AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 07:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:58:12 +0000 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > > > > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();  
> > > > 
> > > > What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock here?  
> > > 
> > > I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).
> > 
> > Please explain it in the commit message in more certain terms.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. The real_dev is saved in xs->xso.real_dev,
> and also bond's slave. It's straightforward. What else do I need to
> explain?

I think Jakub means you need to make sure the real_dev is not freed during
xfrmdev_ops. See bond_ipsec_add_sa(). You unlock it too early and later
xfrmdev_ops is not protected.

Hangbin

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jianbo Liu]

On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 11:11 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:03:58AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 07:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:58:12 +0000 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > > > > > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > > > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();  
> > > > > 
> > > > > What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock
> > > > > here?  
> > > > 
> > > > I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).
> > > 
> > > Please explain it in the commit message in more certain terms.
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand. The real_dev is saved in xs-
> > >xso.real_dev,
> > and also bond's slave. It's straightforward. What else do I need to
> > explain?
> 
> I think Jakub means you need to make sure the real_dev is not freed
> during
> xfrmdev_ops. See bond_ipsec_add_sa(). You unlock it too early and
> later
> xfrmdev_ops is not protected.

This RCU lock is to protect the reading of curr_active_slave, which is
pointing to a big stuct - slave struct, so there is no error to get
real_dev from slave->dev.

Thanks!
Jianbo

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Hangbin Liu]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 01:23:05AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 11:11 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:03:58AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 07:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:58:12 +0000 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > > > > > > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > > > > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock
> > > > > > here?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).
> > > > 
> > > > Please explain it in the commit message in more certain terms.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I don't understand. The real_dev is saved in xs-
> > > >xso.real_dev,
> > > and also bond's slave. It's straightforward. What else do I need to
> > > explain?
> > 
> > I think Jakub means you need to make sure the real_dev is not freed
> > during
> > xfrmdev_ops. See bond_ipsec_add_sa(). You unlock it too early and
> > later
> > xfrmdev_ops is not protected.
> 
> This RCU lock is to protect the reading of curr_active_slave, which is
> pointing to a big stuct - slave struct, so there is no error to get
> real_dev from slave->dev.

It's not about getting real_dev from slave->dev. As Jakub said, What's holding
on real_dev once you drop the rcu lock?

Thanks
Hangbin

Re: [PATCH net V3 1/3] bonding: implement xdo_dev_state_free and call it after deletion

[Jianbo Liu]

On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 11:34 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 01:23:05AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 11:11 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:03:58AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 07:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 02:58:12 +0000 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > > +       bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
> > > > > > > > +       slave = rcu_dereference(bond-
> > > > > > > > >curr_active_slave);
> > > > > > > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > > > > > > +       rcu_read_unlock();  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What's holding onto real_dev once you drop the rcu lock
> > > > > > > here?  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think it should be xfrm state (and bond device).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please explain it in the commit message in more certain
> > > > > terms.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I don't understand. The real_dev is saved in xs-
> > > > > xso.real_dev,
> > > > and also bond's slave. It's straightforward. What else do I
> > > > need to
> > > > explain?
> > > 
> > > I think Jakub means you need to make sure the real_dev is not
> > > freed
> > > during
> > > xfrmdev_ops. See bond_ipsec_add_sa(). You unlock it too early and
> > > later
> > > xfrmdev_ops is not protected.
> > 
> > This RCU lock is to protect the reading of curr_active_slave, which
> > is
> > pointing to a big stuct - slave struct, so there is no error to get
> > real_dev from slave->dev.
> 
> It's not about getting real_dev from slave->dev. As Jakub said,
> What's holding
> on real_dev once you drop the rcu lock?
> 

As you mentioned the lock, I explained what's it used for, so we will
not mix basic concepts and make things complicated. 
As for Jakub's question, I already answered. And I'm waiting for his
reply so I can better undestand how to modify if there is any. 

Thanks!
Jianbo

[PATCH net V3 2/3] bonding: extract the use of real_device into local variable

[Tariq Toukan]

From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>

Add a local variable for slave->dev, to prepare for the lock change in
the next patch. There is no functionality change.

Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index eb5e43860670..e550b1c08fdb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
 			     struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
 {
 	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
+	struct net_device *real_dev;
 	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
 	struct bonding *bond;
 	struct slave *slave;
@@ -443,9 +444,10 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
-	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
-	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
-	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
+	real_dev = slave->dev;
+	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
+	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
 		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Slave does not support ipsec offload");
 		rcu_read_unlock();
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -456,9 +458,9 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
 		rcu_read_unlock();
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
-	xs->xso.real_dev = slave->dev;
 
-	err = slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(xs, extack);
+	xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
+	err = real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(xs, extack);
 	if (!err) {
 		ipsec->xs = xs;
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ipsec->list);
@@ -475,6 +477,7 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
 static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 {
 	struct net_device *bond_dev = bond->dev;
+	struct net_device *real_dev;
 	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
 	struct slave *slave;
 
@@ -483,12 +486,13 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 	if (!slave)
 		goto out;
 
-	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
-	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
-	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
+	real_dev = slave->dev;
+	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
+	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
 		spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 		if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list))
-			slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev,
+			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
 				   "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_add\n",
 				   __func__);
 		spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
@@ -497,9 +501,9 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
-		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = slave->dev;
-		if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) {
-			slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__);
+		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
+		if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) {
+			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__);
 			ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
 		}
 	}
@@ -515,6 +519,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 {
 	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
+	struct net_device *real_dev;
 	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
 	struct bonding *bond;
 	struct slave *slave;
@@ -532,16 +537,17 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 	if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
 		goto out;
 
-	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != slave->dev);
+	real_dev = slave->dev;
+	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
 
-	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
-	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
-	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
-		slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n", __func__);
+	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
+	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
+		slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n", __func__);
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
+	real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
 out:
 	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
@@ -558,6 +564,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 {
 	struct net_device *bond_dev = bond->dev;
+	struct net_device *real_dev;
 	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
 	struct slave *slave;
 
@@ -568,21 +575,22 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 		return;
 	}
 
+	real_dev = slave->dev;
 	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
 		if (!ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev)
 			continue;
 
-		if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
-		    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
-		    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
-			slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev,
+		if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+		    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
+		    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
+			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
 				   "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n",
 				   __func__);
 		} else {
-			slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
-			if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
-				slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
+			real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
+			if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
+				real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
 		}
 		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
 	}
-- 
2.44.0

Re: [PATCH net V3 2/3] bonding: extract the use of real_device into local variable

[Hangbin Liu]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:56AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> 
> Add a local variable for slave->dev, to prepare for the lock change in
> the next patch. There is no functionality change.
> 
> Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index eb5e43860670..e550b1c08fdb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
>  			     struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>  {
>  	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
>  	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
>  	struct bonding *bond;
>  	struct slave *slave;
> @@ -443,9 +444,10 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> -	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> -	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
> +	real_dev = slave->dev;
> +	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> +	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> +	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
>  		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Slave does not support ipsec offload");
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -456,9 +458,9 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	}
> -	xs->xso.real_dev = slave->dev;
>  
> -	err = slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(xs, extack);
> +	xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
> +	err = real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(xs, extack);
>  	if (!err) {
>  		ipsec->xs = xs;
>  		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ipsec->list);
> @@ -475,6 +477,7 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
>  static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  {
>  	struct net_device *bond_dev = bond->dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
>  	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
>  	struct slave *slave;
>  
> @@ -483,12 +486,13 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  	if (!slave)
>  		goto out;
>  
> -	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> -	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> -	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
> +	real_dev = slave->dev;
> +	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> +	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> +	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
>  		spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  		if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list))
> -			slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev,
> +			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
>  				   "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_add\n",
>  				   __func__);
>  		spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> @@ -497,9 +501,9 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  
>  	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> -		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = slave->dev;
> -		if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) {
> -			slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__);
> +		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
> +		if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) {
> +			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__);
>  			ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -515,6 +519,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
>  {
>  	struct net_device *bond_dev = xs->xso.dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
>  	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
>  	struct bonding *bond;
>  	struct slave *slave;
> @@ -532,16 +537,17 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
>  	if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
>  		goto out;
>  
> -	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != slave->dev);
> +	real_dev = slave->dev;
> +	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
>  
> -	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> -	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
> -	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
> -		slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n", __func__);
> +	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> +	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
> +	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
> +		slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n", __func__);
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> -	slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
> +	real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
>  out:
>  	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> @@ -558,6 +564,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
>  static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  {
>  	struct net_device *bond_dev = bond->dev;
> +	struct net_device *real_dev;
>  	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
>  	struct slave *slave;
>  
> @@ -568,21 +575,22 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> +	real_dev = slave->dev;
>  	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
>  		if (!ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev)
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> -		    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
> -		    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
> -			slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev,
> +		if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> +		    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
> +		    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
> +			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
>  				   "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n",
>  				   __func__);
>  		} else {
> -			slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> -			if (slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> -				slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
> +			real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> +			if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> +				real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
>  		}
>  		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.44.0
> 

Reviewed-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>

[PATCH net V3 3/3] bonding: change ipsec_lock from spin lock to mutex

[Tariq Toukan]

From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>

In the cited commit, bond->ipsec_lock is added to protect ipsec_list,
hence xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete are called inside
this lock. As ipsec_lock is a spin lock and such xfrmdev ops may sleep,
"scheduling while atomic" will be triggered when changing bond's
active slave.

[  101.055189] BUG: scheduling while atomic: bash/902/0x00000200
[  101.055726] Modules linked in:
[  101.058211] CPU: 3 PID: 902 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.9.0-rc4+ #1
[  101.058760] Hardware name:
[  101.059434] Call Trace:
[  101.059436]  <TASK>
[  101.060873]  dump_stack_lvl+0x51/0x60
[  101.061275]  __schedule_bug+0x4e/0x60
[  101.061682]  __schedule+0x612/0x7c0
[  101.062078]  ? __mod_timer+0x25c/0x370
[  101.062486]  schedule+0x25/0xd0
[  101.062845]  schedule_timeout+0x77/0xf0
[  101.063265]  ? asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40
[  101.063724]  ? __bpf_trace_itimer_state+0x10/0x10
[  101.064215]  __wait_for_common+0x87/0x190
[  101.064648]  ? usleep_range_state+0x90/0x90
[  101.065091]  cmd_exec+0x437/0xb20 [mlx5_core]
[  101.065569]  mlx5_cmd_do+0x1e/0x40 [mlx5_core]
[  101.066051]  mlx5_cmd_exec+0x18/0x30 [mlx5_core]
[  101.066552]  mlx5_crypto_create_dek_key+0xea/0x120 [mlx5_core]
[  101.067163]  ? bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding]
[  101.067738]  ? kmalloc_trace+0x4d/0x350
[  101.068156]  mlx5_ipsec_create_sa_ctx+0x33/0x100 [mlx5_core]
[  101.068747]  mlx5e_xfrm_add_state+0x47b/0xaa0 [mlx5_core]
[  101.069312]  bond_change_active_slave+0x392/0x900 [bonding]
[  101.069868]  bond_option_active_slave_set+0x1c2/0x240 [bonding]
[  101.070454]  __bond_opt_set+0xa6/0x430 [bonding]
[  101.070935]  __bond_opt_set_notify+0x2f/0x90 [bonding]
[  101.071453]  bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x72/0xb0 [bonding]
[  101.071965]  bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding]
[  101.072567]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x10c/0x1a0
[  101.073033]  vfs_write+0x2d8/0x400
[  101.073416]  ? alloc_fd+0x48/0x180
[  101.073798]  ksys_write+0x5f/0xe0
[  101.074175]  do_syscall_64+0x52/0x110
[  101.074576]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53

As bond_ipsec_add_sa_all and bond_ipsec_del_sa_all are only called
from bond_change_active_slave, which requires holding the RTNL lock.
And bond_ipsec_add_sa and bond_ipsec_del_sa are xfrm state
xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete APIs, which are in user
context. So ipsec_lock doesn't have to be spin lock, change it to
mutex, and thus the above issue can be resolved.

Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++----------------
 include/net/bonding.h           |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index e550b1c08fdb..56764f1c39b8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -439,38 +439,33 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
 	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
-	if (!slave) {
-		rcu_read_unlock();
+	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+	if (!real_dev)
 		return -ENODEV;
-	}
 
-	real_dev = slave->dev;
 	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
 	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
 	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
 		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Slave does not support ipsec offload");
-		rcu_read_unlock();
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	ipsec = kmalloc(sizeof(*ipsec), GFP_ATOMIC);
-	if (!ipsec) {
-		rcu_read_unlock();
+	ipsec = kmalloc(sizeof(*ipsec), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!ipsec)
 		return -ENOMEM;
-	}
 
 	xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
 	err = real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(xs, extack);
 	if (!err) {
 		ipsec->xs = xs;
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ipsec->list);
-		spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
+		mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 		list_add(&ipsec->list, &bond->ipsec_list);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
+		mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	} else {
 		kfree(ipsec);
 	}
-	rcu_read_unlock();
 	return err;
 }
 
@@ -481,35 +476,43 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
 	struct slave *slave;
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
-	if (!slave)
-		goto out;
+	slave = rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
+	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
+	if (!real_dev)
+		return;
 
-	real_dev = slave->dev;
+	mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
 	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
 	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
-		spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 		if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list))
 			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
 				   "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_add\n",
 				   __func__);
-		spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
+		struct net_device *dev = ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev;
+
+		/* If new state is added before ipsec_lock acquired */
+		if (dev) {
+			if (dev == real_dev)
+				continue;
+
+			dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
+			if (dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
+				dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
+		}
+
 		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
 		if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) {
 			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__);
 			ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
 		}
 	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 out:
-	rcu_read_unlock();
+	mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -530,6 +533,8 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
 	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
+	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	if (!slave)
 		goto out;
@@ -537,7 +542,6 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 	if (!xs->xso.real_dev)
 		goto out;
 
-	real_dev = slave->dev;
 	WARN_ON(xs->xso.real_dev != real_dev);
 
 	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
@@ -549,7 +553,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 
 	real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
 out:
-	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
+	mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
 		if (ipsec->xs == xs) {
 			list_del(&ipsec->list);
@@ -557,8 +561,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
 			break;
 		}
 	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
-	rcu_read_unlock();
+	mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 }
 
 static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
@@ -568,15 +571,12 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
 	struct slave *slave;
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
-	if (!slave) {
-		rcu_read_unlock();
+	slave = rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
+	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
+	if (!real_dev)
 		return;
-	}
 
-	real_dev = slave->dev;
-	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
+	mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
 		if (!ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev)
 			continue;
@@ -594,8 +594,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
 		}
 		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
 	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
-	rcu_read_unlock();
+	mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 }
 
 static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
@@ -5922,7 +5921,7 @@ void bond_setup(struct net_device *bond_dev)
 	/* set up xfrm device ops (only supported in active-backup right now) */
 	bond_dev->xfrmdev_ops = &bond_xfrmdev_ops;
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bond->ipsec_list);
-	spin_lock_init(&bond->ipsec_lock);
+	mutex_init(&bond->ipsec_lock);
 #endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
 
 	/* don't acquire bond device's netif_tx_lock when transmitting */
@@ -5971,6 +5970,10 @@ static void bond_uninit(struct net_device *bond_dev)
 		__bond_release_one(bond_dev, slave->dev, true, true);
 	netdev_info(bond_dev, "Released all slaves\n");
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
+	mutex_destroy(&bond->ipsec_lock);
+#endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
+
 	bond_set_slave_arr(bond, NULL, NULL);
 
 	list_del_rcu(&bond->bond_list);
diff --git a/include/net/bonding.h b/include/net/bonding.h
index b61fb1aa3a56..8bb5f016969f 100644
--- a/include/net/bonding.h
+++ b/include/net/bonding.h
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ struct bonding {
 #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
 	struct list_head ipsec_list;
 	/* protecting ipsec_list */
-	spinlock_t ipsec_lock;
+	struct mutex ipsec_lock;
 #endif /* CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD */
 	struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog;
 };
-- 
2.44.0

Re: [PATCH net V3 3/3] bonding: change ipsec_lock from spin lock to mutex

[Hangbin Liu]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> 
> In the cited commit, bond->ipsec_lock is added to protect ipsec_list,
> hence xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete are called inside
> this lock. As ipsec_lock is a spin lock and such xfrmdev ops may sleep,
> "scheduling while atomic" will be triggered when changing bond's
> active slave.
> 
> [  101.055189] BUG: scheduling while atomic: bash/902/0x00000200
> [  101.055726] Modules linked in:
> [  101.058211] CPU: 3 PID: 902 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.9.0-rc4+ #1
> [  101.058760] Hardware name:
> [  101.059434] Call Trace:
> [  101.059436]  <TASK>
> [  101.060873]  dump_stack_lvl+0x51/0x60
> [  101.061275]  __schedule_bug+0x4e/0x60
> [  101.061682]  __schedule+0x612/0x7c0
> [  101.062078]  ? __mod_timer+0x25c/0x370
> [  101.062486]  schedule+0x25/0xd0
> [  101.062845]  schedule_timeout+0x77/0xf0
> [  101.063265]  ? asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40
> [  101.063724]  ? __bpf_trace_itimer_state+0x10/0x10
> [  101.064215]  __wait_for_common+0x87/0x190
> [  101.064648]  ? usleep_range_state+0x90/0x90
> [  101.065091]  cmd_exec+0x437/0xb20 [mlx5_core]
> [  101.065569]  mlx5_cmd_do+0x1e/0x40 [mlx5_core]
> [  101.066051]  mlx5_cmd_exec+0x18/0x30 [mlx5_core]
> [  101.066552]  mlx5_crypto_create_dek_key+0xea/0x120 [mlx5_core]
> [  101.067163]  ? bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding]
> [  101.067738]  ? kmalloc_trace+0x4d/0x350
> [  101.068156]  mlx5_ipsec_create_sa_ctx+0x33/0x100 [mlx5_core]
> [  101.068747]  mlx5e_xfrm_add_state+0x47b/0xaa0 [mlx5_core]
> [  101.069312]  bond_change_active_slave+0x392/0x900 [bonding]
> [  101.069868]  bond_option_active_slave_set+0x1c2/0x240 [bonding]
> [  101.070454]  __bond_opt_set+0xa6/0x430 [bonding]
> [  101.070935]  __bond_opt_set_notify+0x2f/0x90 [bonding]
> [  101.071453]  bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x72/0xb0 [bonding]
> [  101.071965]  bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding]
> [  101.072567]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x10c/0x1a0
> [  101.073033]  vfs_write+0x2d8/0x400
> [  101.073416]  ? alloc_fd+0x48/0x180
> [  101.073798]  ksys_write+0x5f/0xe0
> [  101.074175]  do_syscall_64+0x52/0x110
> [  101.074576]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
> 
> As bond_ipsec_add_sa_all and bond_ipsec_del_sa_all are only called
> from bond_change_active_slave, which requires holding the RTNL lock.
> And bond_ipsec_add_sa and bond_ipsec_del_sa are xfrm state
> xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete APIs, which are in user
> context. So ipsec_lock doesn't have to be spin lock, change it to
> mutex, and thus the above issue can be resolved.
> 
> Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++----------------
>  include/net/bonding.h           |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index e550b1c08fdb..56764f1c39b8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -481,35 +476,43 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond)
>  	struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
>  	struct slave *slave;
>  
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> -	if (!slave)
> -		goto out;
> +	slave = rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> +	real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> +	if (!real_dev)
> +		return;
>  
> -	real_dev = slave->dev;
> +	mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  	if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
>  	    !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
>  	    netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
> -		spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  		if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list))
>  			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
>  				   "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_add\n",
>  				   __func__);
> -		spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> -	spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> +		struct net_device *dev = ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev;
> +
> +		/* If new state is added before ipsec_lock acquired */
> +		if (dev) {
> +			if (dev == real_dev)
> +				continue;
Hi Jianbo,

Why we skip the deleting here if dev == real_dev? What if the state
is added again on the same slave? From the previous logic it looks we
don't check and do over write for the same device.

Thanks
Hangbin
> +			dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> +			if (dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> +				dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
> +		}
> +
>  		ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
>  		if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) {
>  			slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__);
>  			ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  out:
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
>  }

Re: [PATCH net V3 3/3] bonding: change ipsec_lock from spin lock to mutex

[Jianbo Liu]

On Thu, 2024-08-08 at 17:34 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > In the cited commit, bond->ipsec_lock is added to protect
> > ipsec_list,
> > hence xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete are called inside
> > this lock. As ipsec_lock is a spin lock and such xfrmdev ops may
> > sleep,
> > "scheduling while atomic" will be triggered when changing bond's
> > active slave.
> > 
> > [  101.055189] BUG: scheduling while atomic: bash/902/0x00000200
> > [  101.055726] Modules linked in:
> > [  101.058211] CPU: 3 PID: 902 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.9.0-rc4+ #1
> > [  101.058760] Hardware name:
> > [  101.059434] Call Trace:
> > [  101.059436]  <TASK>
> > [  101.060873]  dump_stack_lvl+0x51/0x60
> > [  101.061275]  __schedule_bug+0x4e/0x60
> > [  101.061682]  __schedule+0x612/0x7c0
> > [  101.062078]  ? __mod_timer+0x25c/0x370
> > [  101.062486]  schedule+0x25/0xd0
> > [  101.062845]  schedule_timeout+0x77/0xf0
> > [  101.063265]  ? asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40
> > [  101.063724]  ? __bpf_trace_itimer_state+0x10/0x10
> > [  101.064215]  __wait_for_common+0x87/0x190
> > [  101.064648]  ? usleep_range_state+0x90/0x90
> > [  101.065091]  cmd_exec+0x437/0xb20 [mlx5_core]
> > [  101.065569]  mlx5_cmd_do+0x1e/0x40 [mlx5_core]
> > [  101.066051]  mlx5_cmd_exec+0x18/0x30 [mlx5_core]
> > [  101.066552]  mlx5_crypto_create_dek_key+0xea/0x120 [mlx5_core]
> > [  101.067163]  ? bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding]
> > [  101.067738]  ? kmalloc_trace+0x4d/0x350
> > [  101.068156]  mlx5_ipsec_create_sa_ctx+0x33/0x100 [mlx5_core]
> > [  101.068747]  mlx5e_xfrm_add_state+0x47b/0xaa0 [mlx5_core]
> > [  101.069312]  bond_change_active_slave+0x392/0x900 [bonding]
> > [  101.069868]  bond_option_active_slave_set+0x1c2/0x240 [bonding]
> > [  101.070454]  __bond_opt_set+0xa6/0x430 [bonding]
> > [  101.070935]  __bond_opt_set_notify+0x2f/0x90 [bonding]
> > [  101.071453]  bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x72/0xb0 [bonding]
> > [  101.071965]  bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding]
> > [  101.072567]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x10c/0x1a0
> > [  101.073033]  vfs_write+0x2d8/0x400
> > [  101.073416]  ? alloc_fd+0x48/0x180
> > [  101.073798]  ksys_write+0x5f/0xe0
> > [  101.074175]  do_syscall_64+0x52/0x110
> > [  101.074576]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
> > 
> > As bond_ipsec_add_sa_all and bond_ipsec_del_sa_all are only called
> > from bond_change_active_slave, which requires holding the RTNL
> > lock.
> > And bond_ipsec_add_sa and bond_ipsec_del_sa are xfrm state
> > xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete APIs, which are in user
> > context. So ipsec_lock doesn't have to be spin lock, change it to
> > mutex, and thus the above issue can be resolved.
> > 
> > Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA")
> > Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++------------
> > ----
> >  include/net/bonding.h           |  2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > index e550b1c08fdb..56764f1c39b8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > @@ -481,35 +476,43 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct
> > bonding *bond)
> >         struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
> >         struct slave *slave;
> >  
> > -       rcu_read_lock();
> > -       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > -       if (!slave)
> > -               goto out;
> > +       slave = rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > +       if (!real_dev)
> > +               return;
> >  
> > -       real_dev = slave->dev;
> > +       mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >         if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> >             !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> >             netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
> > -               spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >                 if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list))
> >                         slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
> >                                    "%s: no slave
> > xdo_dev_state_add\n",
> >                                    __func__);
> > -               spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> >  
> > -       spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >         list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> > +               struct net_device *dev = ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev;
> > +
> > +               /* If new state is added before ipsec_lock acquired
> > */
> > +               if (dev) {
> > +                       if (dev == real_dev)
> > +                               continue;
> Hi Jianbo,
> 
> Why we skip the deleting here if dev == real_dev? What if the state

Here the bond active slave is updated. If dev == real_dev, the state
(should be newly added) is offloaded to new active, so no need to
delete and add back again.  

> is added again on the same slave? From the previous logic it looks we

Why is it added to the same slave? It's not the active one.

> don't check and do over write for the same device.
> 
> Thanks
> Hangbin
> > +                       dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > >xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs);
> > +                       if (dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free)
> > +                               dev->xfrmdev_ops-
> > >xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs);
> > +               }
> > +
> >                 ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev;
> >                 if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec-
> > >xs, NULL)) {
> >                         slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: failed
> > to add SA\n", __func__);
> >                         ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL;
> >                 }
> >         }
> > -       spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >  out:
> > -       rcu_read_unlock();
> > +       mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >  }

Re: [PATCH net V3 3/3] bonding: change ipsec_lock from spin lock to mutex

[Hangbin Liu]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 10:05:26AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-08-08 at 17:34 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > >  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++------------
> > > ----
> > >  include/net/bonding.h           |  2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > index e550b1c08fdb..56764f1c39b8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > > @@ -481,35 +476,43 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct
> > > bonding *bond)
> > >         struct bond_ipsec *ipsec;
> > >         struct slave *slave;
> > >  
> > > -       rcu_read_lock();
> > > -       slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > -       if (!slave)
> > > -               goto out;
> > > +       slave = rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> > > +       real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL;
> > > +       if (!real_dev)
> > > +               return;
> > >  
> > > -       real_dev = slave->dev;
> > > +       mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> > >         if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> > >             !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> > >             netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) {
> > > -               spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> > >                 if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list))
> > >                         slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev,
> > >                                    "%s: no slave
> > > xdo_dev_state_add\n",
> > >                                    __func__);
> > > -               spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> > >                 goto out;
> > >         }
> > >  
> > > -       spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> > >         list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> > > +               struct net_device *dev = ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev;
> > > +
> > > +               /* If new state is added before ipsec_lock acquired
> > > */
> > > +               if (dev) {
> > > +                       if (dev == real_dev)
> > > +                               continue;
> > Hi Jianbo,
> > 
> > Why we skip the deleting here if dev == real_dev? What if the state
> 
> Here the bond active slave is updated. If dev == real_dev, the state
> (should be newly added) is offloaded to new active, so no need to
> delete and add back again.  
> 
> > is added again on the same slave? From the previous logic it looks we
> 
> Why is it added to the same slave? It's not the active one.

OK, I got what you mean now. Thanks for the explaination.

Reviewed-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>