[PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

I find tcf_gate_act() acquires &gact->tcf_lock without disable
bh explicitly, as gact->tcf_lock is acquired inside timer under
softirq context, if tcf_gate_act() is not called with bh disable
by default or under softirq context(which I am not sure as I cannot
find corresponding documentation), then it could be the following 
deadlocks.

tcf_gate_act()
--> spin_loc(&gact->tcf_lock)
<interrupt>
   --> gate_timer_func()
   --> spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock)

Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
---
 net/sched/act_gate.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sched/act_gate.c b/net/sched/act_gate.c
index c9a811f4c7ee..b82daf7401a5 100644
--- a/net/sched/act_gate.c
+++ b/net/sched/act_gate.c
@@ -124,25 +124,25 @@ TC_INDIRECT_SCOPE int tcf_gate_act(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	tcf_lastuse_update(&gact->tcf_tm);
 	tcf_action_update_bstats(&gact->common, skb);
 
-	spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock);
+	spin_lock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
 	if (unlikely(gact->current_gate_status & GATE_ACT_PENDING)) {
-		spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
 		return action;
 	}
 
 	if (!(gact->current_gate_status & GATE_ACT_GATE_OPEN)) {
-		spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
 		goto drop;
 	}
 
 	if (gact->current_max_octets >= 0) {
 		gact->current_entry_octets += qdisc_pkt_len(skb);
 		if (gact->current_entry_octets > gact->current_max_octets) {
-			spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
+			spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
 			goto overlimit;
 		}
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
 
 	return action;
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Simon Horman]

+  Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com>
   Po Liu <Po.Liu@nxp.com>

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 06:26:25PM +0000, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> I find tcf_gate_act() acquires &gact->tcf_lock without disable
> bh explicitly, as gact->tcf_lock is acquired inside timer under
> softirq context, if tcf_gate_act() is not called with bh disable
> by default or under softirq context(which I am not sure as I cannot
> find corresponding documentation), then it could be the following 
> deadlocks.
> 
> tcf_gate_act()
> --> spin_loc(&gact->tcf_lock)
> <interrupt>
>    --> gate_timer_func()
>    --> spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>


Hi Chengfeng Ye,

thanks for your patch.

As a fix for Networking this should probably be targeted at the
'net' tree. Which should be denoted in the subject.

        Subject: [PATCH net] ...

And as a fix this patch should probably have a Fixes tag.
This ones seem appropriate to me, but I could be wrong.

Fixes: a51c328df310 ("net: qos: introduce a gate control flow action")

I don't think it is necessary to repost just to address these issues,
but the Networking maintainers may think otherwise.

The code change itself looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>

> ---
>  net/sched/act_gate.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sched/act_gate.c b/net/sched/act_gate.c
> index c9a811f4c7ee..b82daf7401a5 100644
> --- a/net/sched/act_gate.c
> +++ b/net/sched/act_gate.c
> @@ -124,25 +124,25 @@ TC_INDIRECT_SCOPE int tcf_gate_act(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	tcf_lastuse_update(&gact->tcf_tm);
>  	tcf_action_update_bstats(&gact->common, skb);
>  
> -	spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock);
> +	spin_lock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
>  	if (unlikely(gact->current_gate_status & GATE_ACT_PENDING)) {
> -		spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
>  		return action;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!(gact->current_gate_status & GATE_ACT_GATE_OPEN)) {
> -		spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
>  		goto drop;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (gact->current_max_octets >= 0) {
>  		gact->current_entry_octets += qdisc_pkt_len(skb);
>  		if (gact->current_entry_octets > gact->current_max_octets) {
> -			spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
> +			spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
>  			goto overlimit;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock(&gact->tcf_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&gact->tcf_lock);
>  
>  	return action;
>  
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Cong Wang]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:27 AM Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I find tcf_gate_act() acquires &gact->tcf_lock without disable
> bh explicitly, as gact->tcf_lock is acquired inside timer under
> softirq context, if tcf_gate_act() is not called with bh disable
> by default or under softirq context(which I am not sure as I cannot
> find corresponding documentation), then it could be the following
> deadlocks.

Did you find this during code review or did you see a real
lockdep splat? If the latter, please include the full lockdep log.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

> Did you find this during code review or did you see a real
> lockdep splat? If the latter, please include the full lockdep log.

No, it is found during static code review.

Thanks,
Chengfeng

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:26:25 +0000 Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> I find tcf_gate_act() acquires &gact->tcf_lock without disable
> bh explicitly, as gact->tcf_lock is acquired inside timer under
> softirq context, if tcf_gate_act() is not called with bh disable
> by default or under softirq context(which I am not sure as I cannot
> find corresponding documentation), then it could be the following 
> deadlocks.
> 
> tcf_gate_act()
> --> spin_loc(&gact->tcf_lock)  
> <interrupt>
>    --> gate_timer_func()
>    --> spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock)  

This is a TC action, I don't think it can run without BH being already
disabled, can it?
-- 
pw-bot: cr

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

Hi Jakub,

Thanks for the reply,

I inspected the code a bit more, it seems that the TC action is called from
tcf_proto_ops.classify() callback, which is called from Qdisc_ops enqueue
callback.

Then Qdisc enqueue callback is from

-> __dev_queue_xmit()
-> __dev_xmit_skb()
-> dev_qdisc_enqueue()

inside the net core. It seems that this __dev_queue_xmit() callback is
typically called from BH context (e.g.,  NET_TX_SOFTIRQ) with BH
already disabled, but sometimes also can from a work queue under
process context, one case is the br_mrp_test_work_expired() inside
net/bridge/br_mrp.c. Does it indicate that this TC action could also be
called with BH enable? I am not a developer so really not sure about it,
as the networking code is a bit long and complicated.

Thanks again,
Chengfeng

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Jamal Hadi Salim]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 5:01 AM Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> I inspected the code a bit more, it seems that the TC action is called from
> tcf_proto_ops.classify() callback, which is called from Qdisc_ops enqueue
> callback.
>
> Then Qdisc enqueue callback is from
>
> -> __dev_queue_xmit()
> -> __dev_xmit_skb()
> -> dev_qdisc_enqueue()
>
> inside the net core. It seems that this __dev_queue_xmit() callback is
> typically called from BH context (e.g.,  NET_TX_SOFTIRQ) with BH
> already disabled, but sometimes also can from a work queue under
> process context, one case is the br_mrp_test_work_expired() inside
> net/bridge/br_mrp.c. Does it indicate that this TC action could also be
> called with BH enable? I am not a developer so really not sure about it,
> as the networking code is a bit long and complicated.

net/bridge/br_mrp.c seems to need some love +Cc Horatiu Vultur
<horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Maybe that code needs to run in a tasklet?
In any case your patch is incorrect.

cheers,
jamal

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

Does it mean that dev_queue_xmit() should be executed under BH?

Thanks,
Chengfeng

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Cong Wang]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:01:07PM +0800, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> Thanks for the reply,
> 
> I inspected the code a bit more, it seems that the TC action is called from
> tcf_proto_ops.classify() callback, which is called from Qdisc_ops enqueue
> callback.
> 
> Then Qdisc enqueue callback is from
> 
> -> __dev_queue_xmit()
> -> __dev_xmit_skb()
> -> dev_qdisc_enqueue()
> 
> inside the net core. It seems that this __dev_queue_xmit() callback is
> typically called from BH context (e.g.,  NET_TX_SOFTIRQ) with BH
> already disabled, but sometimes also can from a work queue under
> process context, one case is the br_mrp_test_work_expired() inside
> net/bridge/br_mrp.c. Does it indicate that this TC action could also be
> called with BH enable? I am not a developer so really not sure about it,
> as the networking code is a bit long and complicated.

Doesn't __dev_queue_xmit() itself disable BH with rcu_read_lock_bh()??

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

You are right, sorry for my negligence.

Thanks,
Chengfeng

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Horatiu Vultur]

The 10/05/2023 07:46, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

Hi Jamal,

> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 5:01 AM Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jakub,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply,
> >
> > I inspected the code a bit more, it seems that the TC action is called from
> > tcf_proto_ops.classify() callback, which is called from Qdisc_ops enqueue
> > callback.
> >
> > Then Qdisc enqueue callback is from
> >
> > -> __dev_queue_xmit()
> > -> __dev_xmit_skb()
> > -> dev_qdisc_enqueue()
> >
> > inside the net core. It seems that this __dev_queue_xmit() callback is
> > typically called from BH context (e.g.,  NET_TX_SOFTIRQ) with BH
> > already disabled, but sometimes also can from a work queue under
> > process context, one case is the br_mrp_test_work_expired() inside
> > net/bridge/br_mrp.c. Does it indicate that this TC action could also be
> > called with BH enable? I am not a developer so really not sure about it,
> > as the networking code is a bit long and complicated.
> 
> net/bridge/br_mrp.c seems to need some love +Cc Horatiu Vultur
> <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> Maybe that code needs to run in a tasklet?
> In any case your patch is incorrect.

I am currently out traveling and it would be a little bit hard for me to
look at this right now. I can have a look after I come back in office
around mid November.
But I was wondering if this is stil an issue for MRP as Cong Wang
pointed out, the function __dev_queue_xmit is already disabling the BH.

> 
> cheers,
> jamal
> 

-- 
/Horatiu

Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock

[Jamal Hadi Salim]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 2:36 AM Horatiu Vultur
<horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> wrote:
>
> The 10/05/2023 07:46, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>
> Hi Jamal,
>
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 5:01 AM Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jakub,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply,
> > >
> > > I inspected the code a bit more, it seems that the TC action is called from
> > > tcf_proto_ops.classify() callback, which is called from Qdisc_ops enqueue
> > > callback.
> > >
> > > Then Qdisc enqueue callback is from
> > >
> > > -> __dev_queue_xmit()
> > > -> __dev_xmit_skb()
> > > -> dev_qdisc_enqueue()
> > >
> > > inside the net core. It seems that this __dev_queue_xmit() callback is
> > > typically called from BH context (e.g.,  NET_TX_SOFTIRQ) with BH
> > > already disabled, but sometimes also can from a work queue under
> > > process context, one case is the br_mrp_test_work_expired() inside
> > > net/bridge/br_mrp.c. Does it indicate that this TC action could also be
> > > called with BH enable? I am not a developer so really not sure about it,
> > > as the networking code is a bit long and complicated.
> >
> > net/bridge/br_mrp.c seems to need some love +Cc Horatiu Vultur
> > <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> > Maybe that code needs to run in a tasklet?
> > In any case your patch is incorrect.
>
> I am currently out traveling and it would be a little bit hard for me to
> look at this right now. I can have a look after I come back in office
> around mid November.
> But I was wondering if this is stil an issue for MRP as Cong Wang
> pointed out, the function __dev_queue_xmit is already disabling the BH.

Yeah, sorry - should have read the code. Cong is right, there's
nothing for you to do.

cheers,
jamal

> >
> > cheers,
> > jamal
> >
>
> --
> /Horatiu