From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m15.mail.163.com (m15.mail.163.com [45.254.50.220]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC731D524 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.254.50.220 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707361965; cv=none; b=AdJDZtPrNMb/7PnMCUN/nGCmAHFQmW3X7N/cC64YdtKBaCzvs6MypQzsnl7R5k3oY7ivGgPUEZjkDVk6qpAXA3DLRTcl/GUPz0rgasZ7HFwv9Md8qZbE9v4jUtpUEWdoBYDwUSuZyEapwjPZMM3V7faEGOQFLlWshZoT7CPPKpk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707361965; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z+yo0zt5voSp6a5q/mULSaHI+w/FG367rykyGd8aHuo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=k+PyTQAUj1Ya6D81YVhA1bTL1N2FGoI5Chq1GtsFT54m17HkvsGRPwUJhGsZ8VrA1HISntv59BzvhXQbsA4reVEw2kkddyme3wsBRGnq33gC1ubb2ZVWSckQgwYUNXwYlzWWGwckuYAPrl3LEVlHyulbL54oZzPanl093SIHtzM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=iXPXgbew; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.254.50.220 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="iXPXgbew" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; bh=iU1A+s+OmFRbU5C/InSCU5YgziqsTudEBOy5rIwpCXQ=; b=iXPXgbewrNXJ7UCdfRQM6cB/TKoRQsOCE2xPz759WXozzKZ+azWnzPJjlwL+pj LBmdM2u9/JIN+bo3mz0kS6whWjEAA7MgtWjKWeM7/F9iAk4wfedk2c8Yass2PYqv 0wFbQlAShVbChYxBAj+GD2Zw6n2DHcF+C+7C6NsmCehHA= Received: from localhost (unknown [210.12.126.226]) by gzga-smtp-mta-g0-1 (Coremail) with SMTP id _____wC3D_iXRsRlR3i2AQ--.27861S3; Thu, 08 Feb 2024 11:12:24 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 11:12:23 +0800 From: Tao Liu To: Cosmin Ratiu Cc: roid@nvidia.com, paulb@nvidia.com, vladbu@nvidia.com, dchumak@nvidia.com, saeedm@nvidia.com, taoliu828@163.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Report mlx5_core crash Message-ID: References: <3016cbe9-57e9-4ef4-a979-ac0db1b3ef31@163.com> <055cc6cbe8521fdfd753612d6d6d76857550e731.camel@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <055cc6cbe8521fdfd753612d6d6d76857550e731.camel@nvidia.com> X-CM-TRANSID:_____wC3D_iXRsRlR3i2AQ--.27861S3 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoW7Ar1UGw43ZrW8tr4kuF4DJwb_yoW8JF4kpF WxKa9FkFZYyayUtF10q3WrXa1Ut395Za43WFy5Ww1jvFsYgr93ZF1rK3y3uryDur1DJFyq vw47uw1DZFyDuaDanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x0JUvApbUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: xwdrzxbxysmqqrwthudrp/1tbivg59FGV4HuRD7AACsT On 02/07 , Cosmin Ratiu wrote: > On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 15:01 +0800, Tao Liu wrote: > > On 01/31 , Tao Liu wrote: > > > Hi Mellanox team, > > > > > > We hit a crash in mlx5_core which is similar with commit > > > de31854ece17 ("net/mlx5e: Fix nullptr on deleting mirroring rule"). > > > But they are different cases, our case is: > > > in_port(...),eth(...) \ > > > actions:set(tunnel(...)),vxlan_sys_4789,set(tunnel(...)),vxlan_sys_4789,... > > > > > > BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000270 > > > RIP: 0010:del_sw_hw_rule+0x29/0x190 [mlx5_core] > > Hello, > > I'll help you find and fix the problem. > Your core dump analysis was very useful, but not sufficient to find the > cause of the crash. Would you mind sharing a set of reproduction steps > so we can debug this further? > > Thank you, > Cosmin. Hi Cosmin, Thanks for your reply. It's hard to reproduce the crash directly. In our case the rule forwards ip broadcast traffic to 5 vxlan remotes. And driver creates 6 mlx5_flow_rule which include 5 mlx5_pkt_reformat and 1 counter. It triggers only when two *dr_action in struct mlx5_pkt_reformat have same lower 32 bits, which determined by memory allocation. Is it possible that we do some fault injection in unit test to reproduce? Best regards, Tao