From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa1-f41.google.com (mail-oa1-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC6984A51 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:34:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723109693; cv=none; b=FsMHa/dgV1ewHYzw53+IdsvF21tuxkfGxyAeBw7MBcrY7qFGHVUDkFZ5NDaw5owZ3W1sIKTXFkclDGUP63qE4ZogBLn212X2NMU70okHZdRCfTYhLNNOOhPbfcMKgTQHc7htBWnGvKIcn8zyRFHUGn3QwHECSlL+RZF/nMg2kmA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723109693; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZoGu36Gg3tG1OAS/Ma3m1KyIOKKKT5FLi3nIIOLy0n0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kXh4+tp9EMRMY0HtxqRfDcQzXD8ftoU+Yi1Z94uybdEBxagRXVvzL4m4plYU+cfHsBESb8M7hhHJqWvFkY+AoNjazTr7u7CzHmdO3spYbgQKLRDkDYLhzWt1EUbIaQO+IGIH1n/jGa6ddenKPzaRNq7DwLoUlX0gJ5XfHOKly1c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=Qm0bZxOf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Qm0bZxOf" Received: by mail-oa1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-268a9645e72so542794fac.1 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2024 02:34:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1723109691; x=1723714491; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=V8sgVCURrbQtCZI3hgjZpn+RLT98heZqa49TcHrpel8=; b=Qm0bZxOfLEEj5M6J6i30fFl9Pl4D4tpzOZE4oD+QNvgmTIg+wjkQd5+R4eGF2bU97W gpXQkzENyLXARNnVuoYresoOrufdi9HevG/v4BswB2rXze3mb69y1/gXyfr5AdiNYTNU jYD6DhiscG5uXeKcjWCQZre08DWqCW7mZDJeeqJVkxQOgOZOp8zOy8rbNpRFJDSYyQln J5luP9KQV0WB39s3IluH2puqPrszFeOrqNfOPGL97tNFWfGPvMu5wzMBEROLNa+Gls7v O0WLk7lIXcuz1q3donmVRXsx/1LREGBoCW1NKQnhbGQJgu3P2iq75lm5ofYsZwHPAJea LZbw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723109691; x=1723714491; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=V8sgVCURrbQtCZI3hgjZpn+RLT98heZqa49TcHrpel8=; b=Q4mzH6/zhWzPtCk7+3rw1INRGqgTu1l/nygXk44OM6uvrL0fq1xrR0iwB7FVVM3K4X rI1y8HjFb7RxjFJMNweyn1yt7PEtxAdwEDpP2GhjNw8pJJMsyXbfB6yMTahks20wMmph 3uYLiwMBsekntNkg68EUiDalcyjxYa9auG0YhCow3AUGV6N1DvKA7EEBF/ItinfekKRY ErPEYNHwwmswoE/GKCd4SBY53+sZ6IdybDG1M6On3GKy+gu5Cg7OF59v4ngVamMt7WlO fGig1Gb4huXP9+vU067PoI87bjKMJ3Ij19MFZw1qm7wq1Zf4JAd9vvJ2io+4wqa5I8kn 2s4g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWj+pyi2pjoWjF1bI5O9Yy9h7zmBJtKdETeS3soqJcFEEYEwg22Gm5DyK3OgSAYXSFQoQ5oAEwjteN7nTii54il+m7RORFm X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyrY4SAbUtMp/96e5MLnu01sEqLujNPCBVrshXrriKfvnuX05UZ SuUORLe/ooIVohHOwSWu7xhlxNdEU2NaDrvN/GyQdq9aN15o56nIfWfwrdrg X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGrf7nkeqbojUZoViItLwgvEbCAKXr27qvcRyosrGy69rwkVl/foVlTruwG31xKYefy7nBG6w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:a54a:b0:254:94a4:35d2 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2692b7ed9f7mr1466925fac.45.1723109691038; Thu, 08 Aug 2024 02:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laptop-X1 ([43.228.180.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-710cb2d3c8bsm780954b3a.121.2024.08.08.02.34.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Aug 2024 02:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 17:34:33 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu To: Tariq Toukan Cc: "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed , Gal Pressman , Leon Romanovsky , Jianbo Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH net V3 3/3] bonding: change ipsec_lock from spin lock to mutex Message-ID: References: <20240805050357.2004888-1-tariqt@nvidia.com> <20240805050357.2004888-4-tariqt@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: <20240805050357.2004888-4-tariqt@nvidia.com> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:03:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > From: Jianbo Liu > > In the cited commit, bond->ipsec_lock is added to protect ipsec_list, > hence xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete are called inside > this lock. As ipsec_lock is a spin lock and such xfrmdev ops may sleep, > "scheduling while atomic" will be triggered when changing bond's > active slave. > > [ 101.055189] BUG: scheduling while atomic: bash/902/0x00000200 > [ 101.055726] Modules linked in: > [ 101.058211] CPU: 3 PID: 902 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.9.0-rc4+ #1 > [ 101.058760] Hardware name: > [ 101.059434] Call Trace: > [ 101.059436] > [ 101.060873] dump_stack_lvl+0x51/0x60 > [ 101.061275] __schedule_bug+0x4e/0x60 > [ 101.061682] __schedule+0x612/0x7c0 > [ 101.062078] ? __mod_timer+0x25c/0x370 > [ 101.062486] schedule+0x25/0xd0 > [ 101.062845] schedule_timeout+0x77/0xf0 > [ 101.063265] ? asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40 > [ 101.063724] ? __bpf_trace_itimer_state+0x10/0x10 > [ 101.064215] __wait_for_common+0x87/0x190 > [ 101.064648] ? usleep_range_state+0x90/0x90 > [ 101.065091] cmd_exec+0x437/0xb20 [mlx5_core] > [ 101.065569] mlx5_cmd_do+0x1e/0x40 [mlx5_core] > [ 101.066051] mlx5_cmd_exec+0x18/0x30 [mlx5_core] > [ 101.066552] mlx5_crypto_create_dek_key+0xea/0x120 [mlx5_core] > [ 101.067163] ? bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding] > [ 101.067738] ? kmalloc_trace+0x4d/0x350 > [ 101.068156] mlx5_ipsec_create_sa_ctx+0x33/0x100 [mlx5_core] > [ 101.068747] mlx5e_xfrm_add_state+0x47b/0xaa0 [mlx5_core] > [ 101.069312] bond_change_active_slave+0x392/0x900 [bonding] > [ 101.069868] bond_option_active_slave_set+0x1c2/0x240 [bonding] > [ 101.070454] __bond_opt_set+0xa6/0x430 [bonding] > [ 101.070935] __bond_opt_set_notify+0x2f/0x90 [bonding] > [ 101.071453] bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x72/0xb0 [bonding] > [ 101.071965] bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x4d/0x80 [bonding] > [ 101.072567] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x10c/0x1a0 > [ 101.073033] vfs_write+0x2d8/0x400 > [ 101.073416] ? alloc_fd+0x48/0x180 > [ 101.073798] ksys_write+0x5f/0xe0 > [ 101.074175] do_syscall_64+0x52/0x110 > [ 101.074576] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 > > As bond_ipsec_add_sa_all and bond_ipsec_del_sa_all are only called > from bond_change_active_slave, which requires holding the RTNL lock. > And bond_ipsec_add_sa and bond_ipsec_del_sa are xfrm state > xdo_dev_state_add and xdo_dev_state_delete APIs, which are in user > context. So ipsec_lock doesn't have to be spin lock, change it to > mutex, and thus the above issue can be resolved. > > Fixes: 9a5605505d9c ("bonding: Add struct bond_ipesc to manage SA") > Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu > Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan > --- > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++---------------- > include/net/bonding.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > index e550b1c08fdb..56764f1c39b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > @@ -481,35 +476,43 @@ static void bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(struct bonding *bond) > struct bond_ipsec *ipsec; > struct slave *slave; > > - rcu_read_lock(); > - slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave); > - if (!slave) > - goto out; > + slave = rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave); > + real_dev = slave ? slave->dev : NULL; > + if (!real_dev) > + return; > > - real_dev = slave->dev; > + mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock); > if (!real_dev->xfrmdev_ops || > !real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add || > netif_is_bond_master(real_dev)) { > - spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock); > if (!list_empty(&bond->ipsec_list)) > slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, > "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_add\n", > __func__); > - spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock); > goto out; > } > > - spin_lock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock); > list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) { > + struct net_device *dev = ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev; > + > + /* If new state is added before ipsec_lock acquired */ > + if (dev) { > + if (dev == real_dev) > + continue; Hi Jianbo, Why we skip the deleting here if dev == real_dev? What if the state is added again on the same slave? From the previous logic it looks we don't check and do over write for the same device. Thanks Hangbin > + dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(ipsec->xs); > + if (dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free) > + dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_free(ipsec->xs); > + } > + > ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = real_dev; > if (real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(ipsec->xs, NULL)) { > slave_warn(bond_dev, real_dev, "%s: failed to add SA\n", __func__); > ipsec->xs->xso.real_dev = NULL; > } > } > - spin_unlock_bh(&bond->ipsec_lock); > out: > - rcu_read_unlock(); > + mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock); > }