* packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
@ 2009-12-14 17:52 Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 19:24 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2009-12-14 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
Hi,
I don't know if it has been reported already.
I get the following warning on boot, with latest upstream tree:
[ 32.776502] sched: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:3032
[ 32.802173] sched: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 3555, name: dhclient3
[ 32.821141] 1 lock held by dhclient3/3555:
[ 32.821147] #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff815d177d>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0
[ 32.821174] Pid: 3555, comm: dhclient3 Tainted: G W 2.6.32-tip+ #134
[ 32.821181] Call Trace:
[ 32.821194] [<ffffffff810811c3>] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x13/0x30
[ 32.821207] [<ffffffff8103d6b8>] __might_sleep+0x118/0x140
[ 32.821219] [<ffffffff81110c23>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x173/0x190
[ 32.821231] [<ffffffff815483d9>] __alloc_skb+0x49/0x170
[ 32.821241] [<ffffffff81542238>] sock_wmalloc+0x38/0x80
[ 32.821250] [<ffffffff815d182b>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x12b/0x2c0
[ 32.821260] [<ffffffff815d177d>] ? packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0
[ 32.821272] [<ffffffff8153ded7>] sock_sendmsg+0x127/0x140
[ 32.821285] [<ffffffff8106f4a0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
[ 32.821297] [<ffffffff810f467b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
[ 32.821306] [<ffffffff810f467b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
[ 32.821318] [<ffffffff815401aa>] ? move_addr_to_kernel+0x6a/0x70
[ 32.821328] [<ffffffff8154029f>] sys_sendto+0xef/0x120
[ 32.821340] [<ffffffff81131479>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x29/0x110
[ 32.821355] [<ffffffff810027db>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 17:52 packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2009-12-14 19:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-14 20:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 20:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2009-12-14 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frederic Weisbecker; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
Le 14/12/2009 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if it has been reported already.
> I get the following warning on boot, with latest upstream tree:
>
> [ 32.776502] sched: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:3032
> [ 32.802173] sched: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 3555, name: dhclient3
> [ 32.821141] 1 lock held by dhclient3/3555:
> [ 32.821147] #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff815d177d>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0
> [ 32.821174] Pid: 3555, comm: dhclient3 Tainted: G W 2.6.32-tip+ #134
> [ 32.821181] Call Trace:
> [ 32.821194] [<ffffffff810811c3>] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x13/0x30
> [ 32.821207] [<ffffffff8103d6b8>] __might_sleep+0x118/0x140
> [ 32.821219] [<ffffffff81110c23>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x173/0x190
> [ 32.821231] [<ffffffff815483d9>] __alloc_skb+0x49/0x170
> [ 32.821241] [<ffffffff81542238>] sock_wmalloc+0x38/0x80
> [ 32.821250] [<ffffffff815d182b>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x12b/0x2c0
> [ 32.821260] [<ffffffff815d177d>] ? packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0
> [ 32.821272] [<ffffffff8153ded7>] sock_sendmsg+0x127/0x140
> [ 32.821285] [<ffffffff8106f4a0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> [ 32.821297] [<ffffffff810f467b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
> [ 32.821306] [<ffffffff810f467b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
> [ 32.821318] [<ffffffff815401aa>] ? move_addr_to_kernel+0x6a/0x70
> [ 32.821328] [<ffffffff8154029f>] sys_sendto+0xef/0x120
> [ 32.821340] [<ffffffff81131479>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x29/0x110
> [ 32.821355] [<ffffffff810027db>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
Thanks for the report Frederic.
We could partly revert the original commit, but as we wanted to avoid touching
device refcount, and af_packet might be the only real abuser, we could
try following patch instead.
Thanks
[PATCH] packet: dont call sleeping function while holding rcu_read_lock()
commit 654d1f8a019dfa06d (packet: less dev_put() calls)
introduced a problem, calling a potentially sleeping function from a
rcu_read_lock() protected section.
Fix this by releasing lock before the sock_wmalloc() call.
After skb allocation, we redo device lookup and appropriate tests.
Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
---
net/packet/af_packet.c | 36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index 0205621..19ceadc 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
struct sockaddr_pkt *saddr = (struct sockaddr_pkt *)msg->msg_name;
- struct sk_buff *skb;
+ struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
struct net_device *dev;
__be16 proto = 0;
int err;
@@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
*/
saddr->spkt_device[13] = 0;
+retry:
rcu_read_lock();
dev = dev_get_by_name_rcu(sock_net(sk), saddr->spkt_device);
err = -ENODEV;
@@ -456,27 +457,21 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
if (len > dev->mtu + dev->hard_header_len)
goto out_unlock;
- err = -ENOBUFS;
- skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev), 0, GFP_KERNEL);
-
- /*
- * If the write buffer is full, then tough. At this level the user
- * gets to deal with the problem - do your own algorithmic backoffs.
- * That's far more flexible.
- */
+ if (!skb) {
+ size_t reserved = LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev);
- if (skb == NULL)
- goto out_unlock;
-
- /*
- * Fill it in
- */
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + reserved, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (skb == NULL)
+ return -ENOBUFS;
+ skb_reserve(skb, reserved);
+ goto retry;
+ }
/* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a
* hard header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the
* notable one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
*/
- skb_reserve(skb, LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev));
skb_reset_network_header(skb);
/* Try to align data part correctly */
@@ -494,20 +489,15 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
skb->mark = sk->sk_mark;
if (err)
- goto out_free;
-
- /*
- * Now send it
- */
+ goto out_unlock;
dev_queue_xmit(skb);
rcu_read_unlock();
return len;
-out_free:
- kfree_skb(skb);
out_unlock:
rcu_read_unlock();
+ kfree_skb(skb);
return err;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 19:24 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2009-12-14 20:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 20:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2009-12-14 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Thanks for the report Frederic.
>
> We could partly revert the original commit, but as we wanted to avoid touching
> device refcount, and af_packet might be the only real abuser, we could
> try following patch instead.
>
> Thanks
>
> [PATCH] packet: dont call sleeping function while holding rcu_read_lock()
>
> commit 654d1f8a019dfa06d (packet: less dev_put() calls)
> introduced a problem, calling a potentially sleeping function from a
> rcu_read_lock() protected section.
>
> Fix this by releasing lock before the sock_wmalloc() call.
> After skb allocation, we redo device lookup and appropriate tests.
>
> Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/packet/af_packet.c | 36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index 0205621..19ceadc 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> {
> struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> struct sockaddr_pkt *saddr = (struct sockaddr_pkt *)msg->msg_name;
> - struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
> struct net_device *dev;
> __be16 proto = 0;
> int err;
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> */
>
> saddr->spkt_device[13] = 0;
> +retry:
> rcu_read_lock();
> dev = dev_get_by_name_rcu(sock_net(sk), saddr->spkt_device);
> err = -ENODEV;
> @@ -456,27 +457,21 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> if (len > dev->mtu + dev->hard_header_len)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> - err = -ENOBUFS;
> - skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev), 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> -
> - /*
> - * If the write buffer is full, then tough. At this level the user
> - * gets to deal with the problem - do your own algorithmic backoffs.
> - * That's far more flexible.
> - */
> + if (!skb) {
> + size_t reserved = LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev);
>
> - if (skb == NULL)
> - goto out_unlock;
> -
> - /*
> - * Fill it in
> - */
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + reserved, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (skb == NULL)
> + return -ENOBUFS;
> + skb_reserve(skb, reserved);
> + goto retry;
> + }
>
> /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a
> * hard header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the
> * notable one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
> */
> - skb_reserve(skb, LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev));
> skb_reset_network_header(skb);
>
> /* Try to align data part correctly */
> @@ -494,20 +489,15 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
> skb->mark = sk->sk_mark;
> if (err)
> - goto out_free;
> -
> - /*
> - * Now send it
> - */
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> dev_queue_xmit(skb);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return len;
>
> -out_free:
> - kfree_skb(skb);
> out_unlock:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> return err;
> }
>
Thanks, yeah it fixes the problem but unearthes a new one:
[ 32.428785] sched: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/memory.c:3369
[ 32.454154] sched: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 3531, name: dhclient3
[ 32.472866] 1 lock held by dhclient3/3531:
[ 32.472872] #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff815d1a5e>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0xce/0x340
[ 32.472900] Pid: 3531, comm: dhclient3 Tainted: G W 2.6.32-tip+ #135
[ 32.472906] Call Trace:
[ 32.472920] [<ffffffff81081403>] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x13/0x30
[ 32.472933] [<ffffffff8103d6b8>] __might_sleep+0x118/0x140
[ 32.472944] [<ffffffff810f48cb>] might_fault+0x3b/0xd0
[ 32.472955] [<ffffffff81549c1e>] memcpy_fromiovec+0x6e/0xa0
[ 32.472965] [<ffffffff815d1c44>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x2b4/0x340
[ 32.472975] [<ffffffff815d1a5e>] ? packet_sendmsg_spkt+0xce/0x340
[ 32.472986] [<ffffffff8153e167>] sock_sendmsg+0x127/0x140
[ 32.472999] [<ffffffff8106f6e0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
[ 32.473009] [<ffffffff810f490b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
[ 32.473019] [<ffffffff810f490b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
[ 32.473030] [<ffffffff8154043a>] ? move_addr_to_kernel+0x6a/0x70
[ 32.473040] [<ffffffff8154052f>] sys_sendto+0xef/0x120
[ 32.473053] [<ffffffff81131709>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x29/0x110
[ 32.473067] [<ffffffff810027db>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
And I guess you need to protect dev until the packet is submitted.
Looks tricky...
I've searched a kind of get_net_dev() but did not find any :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 19:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-14 20:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2009-12-14 20:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 21:25 ` Eric Dumazet
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2009-12-14 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le 14/12/2009 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know if it has been reported already.
> > I get the following warning on boot, with latest upstream tree:
> >
> > [ 32.776502] sched: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:3032
> > [ 32.802173] sched: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 3555, name: dhclient3
> > [ 32.821141] 1 lock held by dhclient3/3555:
> > [ 32.821147] #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff815d177d>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0
> > [ 32.821174] Pid: 3555, comm: dhclient3 Tainted: G W 2.6.32-tip+ #134
> > [ 32.821181] Call Trace:
> > [ 32.821194] [<ffffffff810811c3>] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x13/0x30
> > [ 32.821207] [<ffffffff8103d6b8>] __might_sleep+0x118/0x140
> > [ 32.821219] [<ffffffff81110c23>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x173/0x190
> > [ 32.821231] [<ffffffff815483d9>] __alloc_skb+0x49/0x170
> > [ 32.821241] [<ffffffff81542238>] sock_wmalloc+0x38/0x80
> > [ 32.821250] [<ffffffff815d182b>] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x12b/0x2c0
> > [ 32.821260] [<ffffffff815d177d>] ? packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0
> > [ 32.821272] [<ffffffff8153ded7>] sock_sendmsg+0x127/0x140
> > [ 32.821285] [<ffffffff8106f4a0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> > [ 32.821297] [<ffffffff810f467b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
> > [ 32.821306] [<ffffffff810f467b>] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0
> > [ 32.821318] [<ffffffff815401aa>] ? move_addr_to_kernel+0x6a/0x70
> > [ 32.821328] [<ffffffff8154029f>] sys_sendto+0xef/0x120
> > [ 32.821340] [<ffffffff81131479>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x29/0x110
> > [ 32.821355] [<ffffffff810027db>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >
>
> Thanks for the report Frederic.
>
> We could partly revert the original commit, but as we wanted to avoid touching
> device refcount, and af_packet might be the only real abuser, we could
> try following patch instead.
>
> Thanks
I also wonder. Are you using PREEMPT_RCU ?
That may explain why you haven't seen this issue because
might_sleep() doesn't see you are in a rcu read locked
section as preemption is not disabled, but it is illegal to
voluntarily sleep in such area (although it's fine with
preempt rcu) as doing so with non-prempt RCU config would barf.
I'm trying a patch to handle that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 20:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2009-12-14 21:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-14 21:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2009-12-14 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frederic Weisbecker; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
Le 14/12/2009 21:52, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
>
> I also wonder. Are you using PREEMPT_RCU ?
Not at all :)
But yes, this is illegal to do the memcpy_fromiovec() in rcu_read_lock() context.
> That may explain why you haven't seen this issue because
> might_sleep() doesn't see you are in a rcu read locked
> section as preemption is not disabled, but it is illegal to
> voluntarily sleep in such area (although it's fine with
> preempt rcu) as doing so with non-prempt RCU config would barf.
>
> I'm trying a patch to handle that.
As you want, I also have a patch testing right now :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 21:25 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2009-12-14 21:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 21:39 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2009-12-14 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:57PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le 14/12/2009 21:52, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> >
> > I also wonder. Are you using PREEMPT_RCU ?
>
> Not at all :)
>
> But yes, this is illegal to do the memcpy_fromiovec() in rcu_read_lock() context.
I've just tested, and with rcu preempt it is mute, no warning :)
> > That may explain why you haven't seen this issue because
> > might_sleep() doesn't see you are in a rcu read locked
> > section as preemption is not disabled, but it is illegal to
> > voluntarily sleep in such area (although it's fine with
> > preempt rcu) as doing so with non-prempt RCU config would barf.
> >
> > I'm trying a patch to handle that.
>
> As you want, I also have a patch testing right now :)
But mine is to teach might_sleep() to handle rcu preempt case,
not to fix this net dev thing.
But I'll happily test the fix you have :)
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 21:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2009-12-14 21:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-15 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2009-12-14 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frederic Weisbecker; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
Le 14/12/2009 22:30, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:57PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Le 14/12/2009 21:52, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
>>>
>>> I also wonder. Are you using PREEMPT_RCU ?
>>
>> Not at all :)
>>
>> But yes, this is illegal to do the memcpy_fromiovec() in rcu_read_lock() context.
>
>
> I've just tested, and with rcu preempt it is mute, no warning :)
>
>
>>> That may explain why you haven't seen this issue because
>>> might_sleep() doesn't see you are in a rcu read locked
>>> section as preemption is not disabled, but it is illegal to
>>> voluntarily sleep in such area (although it's fine with
>>> preempt rcu) as doing so with non-prempt RCU config would barf.
>>>
>>> I'm trying a patch to handle that.
>>
>> As you want, I also have a patch testing right now :)
>
>
> But mine is to teach might_sleep() to handle rcu preempt case,
> not to fix this net dev thing.
>
> But I'll happily test the fix you have :)
>
OK here it is, I tested it with PREEMPT_RCU as well
Thanks !
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index 0205621..bc17351 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
struct sockaddr_pkt *saddr = (struct sockaddr_pkt *)msg->msg_name;
- struct sk_buff *skb;
+ struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
struct net_device *dev;
__be16 proto = 0;
int err;
@@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
*/
saddr->spkt_device[13] = 0;
+retry:
rcu_read_lock();
dev = dev_get_by_name_rcu(sock_net(sk), saddr->spkt_device);
err = -ENODEV;
@@ -456,58 +457,48 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
if (len > dev->mtu + dev->hard_header_len)
goto out_unlock;
- err = -ENOBUFS;
- skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev), 0, GFP_KERNEL);
-
- /*
- * If the write buffer is full, then tough. At this level the user
- * gets to deal with the problem - do your own algorithmic backoffs.
- * That's far more flexible.
- */
-
- if (skb == NULL)
- goto out_unlock;
-
- /*
- * Fill it in
- */
-
- /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a
- * hard header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the
- * notable one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
- */
- skb_reserve(skb, LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev));
- skb_reset_network_header(skb);
-
- /* Try to align data part correctly */
- if (dev->header_ops) {
- skb->data -= dev->hard_header_len;
- skb->tail -= dev->hard_header_len;
- if (len < dev->hard_header_len)
- skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+ if (!skb) {
+ size_t reserved = LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev);
+ unsigned int hhlen = dev->header_ops ? dev->hard_header_len : 0;
+
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + reserved, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (skb == NULL)
+ return -ENOBUFS;
+ skb_reserve(skb, reserved);
+ /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a hard
+ * header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the notable
+ * one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
+ */
+ skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+
+ /* Try to align data part correctly */
+ if (hhlen) {
+ skb->data -= hhlen;
+ skb->tail -= hhlen;
+ if (len < hhlen)
+ skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+ }
+ err = memcpy_fromiovec(skb_put(skb, len), msg->msg_iov, len);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_free;
+ goto retry;
}
- /* Returns -EFAULT on error */
- err = memcpy_fromiovec(skb_put(skb, len), msg->msg_iov, len);
+
skb->protocol = proto;
skb->dev = dev;
skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
skb->mark = sk->sk_mark;
- if (err)
- goto out_free;
-
- /*
- * Now send it
- */
dev_queue_xmit(skb);
rcu_read_unlock();
return len;
-out_free:
- kfree_skb(skb);
out_unlock:
rcu_read_unlock();
+out_free:
+ kfree_skb(skb);
return err;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-14 21:39 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2009-12-15 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-15 15:47 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2009-12-15 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: David S. Miller, Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:39:38PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> OK here it is, I tested it with PREEMPT_RCU as well
>
> Thanks !
>
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index 0205621..bc17351 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> {
> struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> struct sockaddr_pkt *saddr = (struct sockaddr_pkt *)msg->msg_name;
> - struct sk_buff *skb;
> + struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
> struct net_device *dev;
> __be16 proto = 0;
> int err;
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> */
>
> saddr->spkt_device[13] = 0;
> +retry:
> rcu_read_lock();
> dev = dev_get_by_name_rcu(sock_net(sk), saddr->spkt_device);
> err = -ENODEV;
> @@ -456,58 +457,48 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
> if (len > dev->mtu + dev->hard_header_len)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> - err = -ENOBUFS;
> - skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev), 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> -
> - /*
> - * If the write buffer is full, then tough. At this level the user
> - * gets to deal with the problem - do your own algorithmic backoffs.
> - * That's far more flexible.
> - */
> -
> - if (skb == NULL)
> - goto out_unlock;
> -
> - /*
> - * Fill it in
> - */
> -
> - /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a
> - * hard header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the
> - * notable one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
> - */
> - skb_reserve(skb, LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev));
> - skb_reset_network_header(skb);
> -
> - /* Try to align data part correctly */
> - if (dev->header_ops) {
> - skb->data -= dev->hard_header_len;
> - skb->tail -= dev->hard_header_len;
> - if (len < dev->hard_header_len)
> - skb_reset_network_header(skb);
> + if (!skb) {
> + size_t reserved = LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev);
> + unsigned int hhlen = dev->header_ops ? dev->hard_header_len : 0;
> +
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + reserved, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (skb == NULL)
> + return -ENOBUFS;
> + skb_reserve(skb, reserved);
> + /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a hard
> + * header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the notable
> + * one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
> + */
> + skb_reset_network_header(skb);
> +
> + /* Try to align data part correctly */
> + if (hhlen) {
> + skb->data -= hhlen;
> + skb->tail -= hhlen;
> + if (len < hhlen)
> + skb_reset_network_header(skb);
> + }
> + err = memcpy_fromiovec(skb_put(skb, len), msg->msg_iov, len);
> + if (err)
> + goto out_free;
> + goto retry;
> }
>
> - /* Returns -EFAULT on error */
> - err = memcpy_fromiovec(skb_put(skb, len), msg->msg_iov, len);
> +
> skb->protocol = proto;
> skb->dev = dev;
> skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
> skb->mark = sk->sk_mark;
> - if (err)
> - goto out_free;
> -
> - /*
> - * Now send it
> - */
>
> dev_queue_xmit(skb);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return len;
>
> -out_free:
> - kfree_skb(skb);
> out_unlock:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> +out_free:
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> return err;
> }
>
>
Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-15 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2009-12-15 15:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-16 5:14 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2009-12-15 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frederic Weisbecker, David S. Miller; +Cc: Neil Horman, Netdev, LKML
Le 15/12/2009 16:13, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>
Thanks for testing Frederic, here is the official patch submission then :)
[PATCH] packet: dont call sleeping functions while holding rcu_read_lock()
commit 654d1f8a019dfa06d (packet: less dev_put() calls)
introduced a problem, calling potentially sleeping functions from a
rcu_read_lock() protected section.
Fix this by releasing lock before the sock_wmalloc()/memcpy_fromiovec() calls.
After skb allocation and copy from user space, we redo device
lookup and appropriate tests.
Reported-and-tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
---
net/packet/af_packet.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index 0205621..bc17351 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
{
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
struct sockaddr_pkt *saddr = (struct sockaddr_pkt *)msg->msg_name;
- struct sk_buff *skb;
+ struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
struct net_device *dev;
__be16 proto = 0;
int err;
@@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
*/
saddr->spkt_device[13] = 0;
+retry:
rcu_read_lock();
dev = dev_get_by_name_rcu(sock_net(sk), saddr->spkt_device);
err = -ENODEV;
@@ -456,58 +457,48 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock,
if (len > dev->mtu + dev->hard_header_len)
goto out_unlock;
- err = -ENOBUFS;
- skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev), 0, GFP_KERNEL);
-
- /*
- * If the write buffer is full, then tough. At this level the user
- * gets to deal with the problem - do your own algorithmic backoffs.
- * That's far more flexible.
- */
-
- if (skb == NULL)
- goto out_unlock;
-
- /*
- * Fill it in
- */
-
- /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a
- * hard header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the
- * notable one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
- */
- skb_reserve(skb, LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev));
- skb_reset_network_header(skb);
-
- /* Try to align data part correctly */
- if (dev->header_ops) {
- skb->data -= dev->hard_header_len;
- skb->tail -= dev->hard_header_len;
- if (len < dev->hard_header_len)
- skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+ if (!skb) {
+ size_t reserved = LL_RESERVED_SPACE(dev);
+ unsigned int hhlen = dev->header_ops ? dev->hard_header_len : 0;
+
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ skb = sock_wmalloc(sk, len + reserved, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (skb == NULL)
+ return -ENOBUFS;
+ /* FIXME: Save some space for broken drivers that write a hard
+ * header at transmission time by themselves. PPP is the notable
+ * one here. This should really be fixed at the driver level.
+ */
+ skb_reserve(skb, reserved);
+ skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+
+ /* Try to align data part correctly */
+ if (hhlen) {
+ skb->data -= hhlen;
+ skb->tail -= hhlen;
+ if (len < hhlen)
+ skb_reset_network_header(skb);
+ }
+ err = memcpy_fromiovec(skb_put(skb, len), msg->msg_iov, len);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_free;
+ goto retry;
}
- /* Returns -EFAULT on error */
- err = memcpy_fromiovec(skb_put(skb, len), msg->msg_iov, len);
+
skb->protocol = proto;
skb->dev = dev;
skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
skb->mark = sk->sk_mark;
- if (err)
- goto out_free;
-
- /*
- * Now send it
- */
dev_queue_xmit(skb);
rcu_read_unlock();
return len;
-out_free:
- kfree_skb(skb);
out_unlock:
rcu_read_unlock();
+out_free:
+ kfree_skb(skb);
return err;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context
2009-12-15 15:47 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2009-12-16 5:14 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2009-12-16 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: eric.dumazet; +Cc: fweisbec, nhorman, netdev, linux-kernel
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:47:03 +0100
> Le 15/12/2009 16:13, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
>
>> Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>>
>
> Thanks for testing Frederic, here is the official patch submission then :)
>
>
> [PATCH] packet: dont call sleeping functions while holding rcu_read_lock()
Applied, thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-12-16 5:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-12-14 17:52 packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 19:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-14 20:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 20:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 21:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-14 21:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-14 21:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-15 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-12-15 15:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-12-16 5:14 ` David Miller
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).