Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1578177

Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array_produce

From Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array_produce
Date 2017-02-10 06:20 +0100
Message-ID <t9bMJ-7xp-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <t8SAp-3UH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <t8TPQ-4PF-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <t91u2-15t-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw



On 2017年02月10日 02:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:02:31AM -0500, Jason Wang 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?
> I think we should use _bh for the produce call as well,
> since resizing takes the producer lock.

Looks not since irq was disabled during resizing?

Thanks

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array_produce Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2017-02-09 09:50 +0100
  Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in  skb_array_produce Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2017-02-09 11:10 +0100
    Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array_produce Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2017-02-09 12:00 +0100
      Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in  skb_array_produce "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2017-02-09 19:00 +0100
        Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array_produce Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2017-02-09 19:10 +0100
          Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in  skb_array_produce "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2017-02-09 19:20 +0100
      Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in  skb_array_produce Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2017-02-10 06:20 +0100
    Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in  skb_array_produce "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2017-02-09 19:20 +0100
      Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in  skb_array_produce Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2017-02-10 06:20 +0100

csiph-web