* 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time)
@ 2011-05-10 1:05 Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-05-10 2:23 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2011-05-10 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, David S. Miller; +Cc: linux-kernel, netdev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2458 bytes --]
Seen during boot this afternoon:
[ 43.309549]
[ 43.309550] ===================================================
[ 43.309553] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
[ 43.309555] ---------------------------------------------------
[ 43.309558] include/linux/inetdevice.h:226 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
[ 43.309560]
[ 43.309561] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 43.309561]
[ 43.309563]
[ 43.309564] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
[ 43.309567] 2 locks held by ip/1193:
[ 43.309568] #0: (nlk->cb_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81426c1d>] netlink_dump+0x45/0x1d0
[ 43.309579] #1: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8141b9b9>] rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0x0/0x156
[ 43.309587]
[ 43.309587] stack backtrace:
[ 43.309590] Pid: 1193, comm: ip Not tainted 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 #1
[ 43.309592] Call Trace:
[ 43.309599] [<ffffffff81066b6e>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9a/0xa2
[ 43.309604] [<ffffffff81468d41>] __in_dev_get_rtnl+0x3c/0x47
[ 43.309607] [<ffffffff81468ef0>] inet_fill_link_af+0x12/0x5b
[ 43.309611] [<ffffffff8141b8fc>] rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x665/0x710
[ 43.309616] [<ffffffff8141ba76>] rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0xbd/0x156
[ 43.309620] [<ffffffff81426c37>] netlink_dump+0x5f/0x1d0
[ 43.309624] [<ffffffff81404e3e>] ? consume_skb+0x8a/0x8f
[ 43.309628] [<ffffffff81426fc8>] netlink_recvmsg+0x1dd/0x31d
[ 43.309632] [<ffffffff813ff21f>] ? rcu_read_unlock+0x21/0x23
[ 43.309636] [<ffffffff813fab57>] sock_recvmsg+0xed/0x112
[ 43.309641] [<ffffffff810d1ebf>] ? might_fault+0x4e/0x9e
[ 43.309645] [<ffffffff81068816>] ? __lock_release+0x93/0x9c
[ 43.309649] [<ffffffff810d1ebf>] ? might_fault+0x4e/0x9e
[ 43.309652] [<ffffffff810d1f08>] ? might_fault+0x97/0x9e
[ 43.309656] [<ffffffff814065f8>] ? copy_from_user+0x3c/0x44
[ 43.309660] [<ffffffff813fc047>] __sys_recvmsg+0x16c/0x224
[ 43.309665] [<ffffffff81059240>] ? up_read+0x23/0x27
[ 43.309669] [<ffffffff81065165>] ? arch_local_irq_save+0x9/0xc
[ 43.309673] [<ffffffff810f736b>] ? fcheck_files+0xb4/0xeb
[ 43.309676] [<ffffffff810f79f3>] ? fget_light+0x35/0x96
[ 43.309680] [<ffffffff813fdded>] sys_recvmsg+0x3d/0x5b
[ 43.309686] [<ffffffff815705bb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 44.437679] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: irq 46 for MSI/MSI-X
[ 44.488363] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: irq 46 for MSI/MSI-X
[ 44.494680] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time)
2011-05-10 1:05 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time) Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2011-05-10 2:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-10 3:47 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2011-05-10 2:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks; +Cc: Andrew Morton, David S. Miller, linux-kernel, netdev
Le lundi 09 mai 2011 à 21:05 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu a écrit :
> Seen during boot this afternoon:
>
> [ 43.309549]
> [ 43.309550] ===================================================
> [ 43.309553] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> [ 43.309555] ---------------------------------------------------
> [ 43.309558] include/linux/inetdevice.h:226 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> [ 43.309560]
> [ 43.309561] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 43.309561]
> [ 43.309563]
> [ 43.309564] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> [ 43.309567] 2 locks held by ip/1193:
> [ 43.309568] #0: (nlk->cb_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81426c1d>] netlink_dump+0x45/0x1d0
> [ 43.309579] #1: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8141b9b9>] rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0x0/0x156
strange : rcu_read_lock() is correctly held at this point
> [ 43.309587]
> [ 43.309587] stack backtrace:
> [ 43.309590] Pid: 1193, comm: ip Not tainted 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 #1
> [ 43.309592] Call Trace:
> [ 43.309599] [<ffffffff81066b6e>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9a/0xa2
> [ 43.309604] [<ffffffff81468d41>] __in_dev_get_rtnl+0x3c/0x47
> [ 43.309607] [<ffffffff81468ef0>] inet_fill_link_af+0x12/0x5b
> [ 43.309611] [<ffffffff8141b8fc>] rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x665/0x710
> [ 43.309616] [<ffffffff8141ba76>] rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0xbd/0x156
> [ 43.309620] [<ffffffff81426c37>] netlink_dump+0x5f/0x1d0
> [ 43.309624] [<ffffffff81404e3e>] ? consume_skb+0x8a/0x8f
> [ 43.309628] [<ffffffff81426fc8>] netlink_recvmsg+0x1dd/0x31d
> [ 43.309632] [<ffffffff813ff21f>] ? rcu_read_unlock+0x21/0x23
> [ 43.309636] [<ffffffff813fab57>] sock_recvmsg+0xed/0x112
> [ 43.309641] [<ffffffff810d1ebf>] ? might_fault+0x4e/0x9e
> [ 43.309645] [<ffffffff81068816>] ? __lock_release+0x93/0x9c
> [ 43.309649] [<ffffffff810d1ebf>] ? might_fault+0x4e/0x9e
> [ 43.309652] [<ffffffff810d1f08>] ? might_fault+0x97/0x9e
> [ 43.309656] [<ffffffff814065f8>] ? copy_from_user+0x3c/0x44
> [ 43.309660] [<ffffffff813fc047>] __sys_recvmsg+0x16c/0x224
> [ 43.309665] [<ffffffff81059240>] ? up_read+0x23/0x27
> [ 43.309669] [<ffffffff81065165>] ? arch_local_irq_save+0x9/0xc
> [ 43.309673] [<ffffffff810f736b>] ? fcheck_files+0xb4/0xeb
> [ 43.309676] [<ffffffff810f79f3>] ? fget_light+0x35/0x96
> [ 43.309680] [<ffffffff813fdded>] sys_recvmsg+0x3d/0x5b
> [ 43.309686] [<ffffffff815705bb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 44.437679] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: irq 46 for MSI/MSI-X
> [ 44.488363] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: irq 46 for MSI/MSI-X
> [ 44.494680] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready
>
>
Thanks for the report, I am taking a look how to fix this.
I am testing following patch, I'll provide an official one when
validated.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
index cd9ca08..6b1eb92 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
@@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ errout:
static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev);
if (!in_dev)
return 0;
@@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@ static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev)
static int inet_fill_link_af(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *dev)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev);
struct nlattr *nla;
int i;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time)
2011-05-10 2:23 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2011-05-10 3:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-10 3:58 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2011-05-10 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks; +Cc: Andrew Morton, David S. Miller, linux-kernel, netdev
Le mardi 10 mai 2011 à 04:23 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Thanks for the report, I am taking a look how to fix this.
>
OK here is the official patch submission
Thanks Valdis !
[PATCH net-next-2.6] net: fix two lockdep splats
Commit e67f88dd12f6 (net: dont hold rtnl mutex during netlink dump
callbacks) switched rtnl protection to RCU, but we forgot to adjust two
rcu_dereference() lockdep annotations :
inet_get_link_af_size() or inet_fill_link_af() might be called with
rcu_read_lock or rtnl held, so use rcu_dereference_rtnl()
instead of rtnl_dereference()
Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
---
net/ipv4/devinet.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
index cd9ca08..6b1eb92 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
@@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ errout:
static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = rcu_dereference_rtnl(dev->ip_ptr);
if (!in_dev)
return 0;
@@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@ static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev)
static int inet_fill_link_af(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *dev)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = rcu_dereference_rtnl(dev->ip_ptr);
struct nlattr *nla;
int i;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time)
2011-05-10 3:47 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2011-05-10 3:58 ` David Miller
2011-05-10 21:48 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2011-05-10 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: eric.dumazet; +Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks, akpm, linux-kernel, netdev
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 05:47:51 +0200
> [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: fix two lockdep splats
>
> Commit e67f88dd12f6 (net: dont hold rtnl mutex during netlink dump
> callbacks) switched rtnl protection to RCU, but we forgot to adjust two
> rcu_dereference() lockdep annotations :
>
> inet_get_link_af_size() or inet_fill_link_af() might be called with
> rcu_read_lock or rtnl held, so use rcu_dereference_rtnl()
> instead of rtnl_dereference()
>
> Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Applied, thanks everyone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time)
2011-05-10 3:58 ` David Miller
@ 2011-05-10 21:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-10 21:59 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2011-05-10 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller; +Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks, akpm, linux-kernel, netdev
Le lundi 09 mai 2011 à 20:58 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 05:47:51 +0200
>
> > [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: fix two lockdep splats
> >
> > Commit e67f88dd12f6 (net: dont hold rtnl mutex during netlink dump
> > callbacks) switched rtnl protection to RCU, but we forgot to adjust two
> > rcu_dereference() lockdep annotations :
> >
> > inet_get_link_af_size() or inet_fill_link_af() might be called with
> > rcu_read_lock or rtnl held, so use rcu_dereference_rtnl()
> > instead of rtnl_dereference()
> >
> > Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>
> Applied, thanks everyone.
David, I found you applied this patch for net-2.6, but it was
net-next-2.6 material only ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time)
2011-05-10 21:48 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2011-05-10 21:59 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2011-05-10 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: eric.dumazet; +Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks, akpm, linux-kernel, netdev
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 23:48:36 +0200
> Le lundi 09 mai 2011 à 20:58 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 05:47:51 +0200
>>
>> > [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: fix two lockdep splats
>> >
>> > Commit e67f88dd12f6 (net: dont hold rtnl mutex during netlink dump
>> > callbacks) switched rtnl protection to RCU, but we forgot to adjust two
>> > rcu_dereference() lockdep annotations :
>> >
>> > inet_get_link_af_size() or inet_fill_link_af() might be called with
>> > rcu_read_lock or rtnl held, so use rcu_dereference_rtnl()
>> > instead of rtnl_dereference()
>> >
>> > Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
>> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>>
>> Applied, thanks everyone.
>
> David, I found you applied this patch for net-2.6, but it was
> net-next-2.6 material only ...
Thanks for catching that, I'll fix this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-10 21:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-10 1:05 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time) Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-05-10 2:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-10 3:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-10 3:58 ` David Miller
2011-05-10 21:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-10 21:59 ` 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).