From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: jinyiting@huawei.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net,
kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, security@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xuhanbing@huawei.com,
wangxiaogang3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: 3ad: Fix the conflict between bond_update_slave_arr and the state machine
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:29:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <31539.1619465362@famine> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210426.120822.232032630973964712.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:22:37 -0700
>
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>>>From: jinyiting <jinyiting@huawei.com>
>>>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:38:21 +0800
>>>
>>>> The bond works in mode 4, and performs down/up operations on the bond
>>>> that is normally negotiated. The probability of bond-> slave_arr is NULL
>>>>
>>>> Test commands:
>>>> ifconfig bond1 down
>>>> ifconfig bond1 up
>>>>
>>>> The conflict occurs in the following process:
>>>>
>>>> __dev_open (CPU A)
>>>> --bond_open
>>>> --queue_delayed_work(bond->wq,&bond->ad_work,0);
>>>> --bond_update_slave_arr
>>>> --bond_3ad_get_active_agg_info
>>>>
>>>> ad_work(CPU B)
>>>> --bond_3ad_state_machine_handler
>>>> --ad_agg_selection_logic
>>>>
>>>> ad_work runs on cpu B. In the function ad_agg_selection_logic, all
>>>> agg->is_active will be cleared. Before the new active aggregator is
>>>> selected on CPU B, bond_3ad_get_active_agg_info failed on CPU A,
>>>> bond->slave_arr will be set to NULL. The best aggregator in
>>>> ad_agg_selection_logic has not changed, no need to update slave arr.
>>>>
>>>> The conflict occurred in that ad_agg_selection_logic clears
>>>> agg->is_active under mode_lock, but bond_open -> bond_update_slave_arr
>>>> is inspecting agg->is_active outside the lock.
>>>>
>>>> Also, bond_update_slave_arr is normal for potential sleep when
>>>> allocating memory, so replace the WARN_ON with a call to might_sleep.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: jinyiting <jinyiting@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Previous versions:
>>>> * https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/612b5e32-ea11-428e-0c17-e2977185f045@huawei.com/
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 7 ++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> index 74cbbb2..83ef62d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> @@ -4406,7 +4404,9 @@ int bond_update_slave_arr(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *skipslave)
>>>> if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_8023AD) {
>>>> struct ad_info ad_info;
>>>>
>>>> + spin_lock_bh(&bond->mode_lock);
>>>
>>>The code paths that call this function with mode_lock held will now deadlock.
>>
>> No path should be calling bond_update_slave_arr with mode_lock
>> already held (it expects RTNL only); did you find one?
>>
>> My concern is that there's something else that does the opposite
>> order, i.e., mode_lock first, then RTNL, but I haven't found an example.
>>
>
>This patch is removing a lockdep assertion masking sure that mode_lock was held
>when this function was called. That should have been triggering all the time, right?
The line in question is:
#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
WARN_ON(lockdep_is_held(&bond->mode_lock));
#endif
The WARN_ON is triggering if mode_lock is held, not asserting
that mode_lock is held. I think that's wrong anyway, since mode_lock
could be held by some other thread, leading to false positives, thus the
change to might_sleep.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-26 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-21 8:38 [PATCH] bonding: 3ad: Fix the conflict between bond_update_slave_arr and the state machine jinyiting
2021-04-23 20:07 ` David Miller
2021-04-26 15:22 ` Jay Vosburgh
2021-04-26 19:08 ` David Miller
2021-04-26 19:29 ` Jay Vosburgh [this message]
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=31539.1619465362@famine \
--to=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jinyiting@huawei.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=security@kernel.org \
--cc=vfalico@gmail.com \
--cc=wangxiaogang3@huawei.com \
--cc=xuhanbing@huawei.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).