From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array_produce
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 18:55:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+a-SXFy1nu+9CKmn3-sR1t5c531TFwt3Ruf4F88p7AXqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACT4Y+bs15VR7xjeYhece+0_X5Ss+5FM0w6jpJH0Dbbdu-+qCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <50038580.20299907.1486634551103.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <CACT4Y+ZVS_SvUarbvk4aeXkJvFCCfgozq5DzHYLcfbjMN4aTtg@mail.gmail.com> <20170209194943-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170209194943-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:49:30AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I've got the following report while running syzkaller fuzzer on mmotm
>> >> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git)
>> >> remotes/mmotm/auto-latest ee4ba7533626ba7bf2f8b992266467ac9fdc045e:
>> >>
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> other info that might help us debug this:
>> >>
>> >>  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>> >>
>> >>        CPU0                    CPU1
>> >>        ----                    ----
>> >>   lock(&(&r->consumer_lock)->rlock);
>> >>                                local_irq_disable();
>> >>                                lock(&(&r->producer_lock)->rlock);
>> >>                                lock(&(&r->consumer_lock)->rlock);
>> >>   <Interrupt>
>> >>     lock(&(&r->producer_lock)->rlock);
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for the testing.
>> >
>> > Looks like we could address this by using skb_array_consume_bh() instead.
>> >
>> > Could you pls verify if the following patch works?
>>
>> No, I can't test it, sorry. This happened once on bots. And bots
>> currently test only upstream versions.
>
> Which trees are tested? Will linux-next help?

Linus tree, linux-next and mmotm at the moment.