Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: moyufeng <moyufeng@huawei.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <shenjian15@huawei.com>,
	<lipeng321@huawei.com>, <yisen.zhuang@huawei.com>,
	<linyunsheng@huawei.com>, <zhangjiaran@huawei.com>,
	<huangguangbin2@huawei.com>, <chenhao288@hisilicon.com>,
	<salil.mehta@huawei.com>, <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	<linuxarm@openeuler.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: 3ad: fix the concurrency between __bond_release_one() and bond_3ad_state_machine_handler()
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:28:51 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ed9423af-6cf2-2d9e-a31a-72cbe9f4ff73@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bca516cf-1174-22c9-215f-4463713edd52@huawei.com>


On 2021/7/29 10:32, moyufeng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/7/29 3:05, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/07/2021 09:19, Yufeng Mo wrote:
>>>> Some time ago, I reported a calltrace issue
>>>> "did not find a suitable aggregator", please see[1].
>>>> After a period of analysis and reproduction, I find
>>>> that this problem is caused by concurrency.
>>>>
>>>> Before the problem occurs, the bond structure is like follows:
>>>>
>>>> bond0 - slaver0(eth0) - agg0.lag_ports -> port0 - port1
>>>>                       \
>>>>                         port0
>>>>       \
>>>>         slaver1(eth1) - agg1.lag_ports -> NULL
>>>>                       \
>>>>                         port1
>>>>
>>>> If we run 'ifenslave bond0 -d eth1', the process is like below:
>>>>
>>>> excuting __bond_release_one()
>>>> |
>>>> bond_upper_dev_unlink()[step1]
>>>> |                       |                       |
>>>> |                       |                       bond_3ad_lacpdu_recv()
>>>> |                       |                       ->bond_3ad_rx_indication()
>>>> |                       |                       spin_lock_bh()
>>>> |                       |                       ->ad_rx_machine()
>>>> |                       |                       ->__record_pdu()[step2]
>>>> |                       |                       spin_unlock_bh()
>>>> |                       |                       |
>>>> |                       bond_3ad_state_machine_handler()
>>>> |                       spin_lock_bh()
>>>> |                       ->ad_port_selection_logic()
>>>> |                       ->try to find free aggregator[step3]
>>>> |                       ->try to find suitable aggregator[step4]
>>>> |                       ->did not find a suitable aggregator[step5]
>>>> |                       spin_unlock_bh()
>>>> |                       |
>>>> |                       |
>>>> bond_3ad_unbind_slave() |
>>>> spin_lock_bh()
>>>> spin_unlock_bh()
>>>>
>>>> step1: already removed slaver1(eth1) from list, but port1 remains
>>>> step2: receive a lacpdu and update port0
>>>> step3: port0 will be removed from agg0.lag_ports. The struct is
>>>>        "agg0.lag_ports -> port1" now, and agg0 is not free. At the
>>>> 	   same time, slaver1/agg1 has been removed from the list by step1.
>>>> 	   So we can't find a free aggregator now.
>>>> step4: can't find suitable aggregator because of step2
>>>> step5: cause a calltrace since port->aggregator is NULL
>>>>
>>>> To solve this concurrency problem, the range of bond->mode_lock
>>>> is extended from only bond_3ad_unbind_slave() to both
>>>> bond_upper_dev_unlink() and bond_3ad_unbind_slave().
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/10374.1611947473@famine/
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yufeng Mo <moyufeng@huawei.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c  | 7 +------
>>>>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>  /**
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> index 0ff7567..deb019e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> @@ -2129,14 +2129,18 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
>>>>  	/* recompute stats just before removing the slave */
>>>>  	bond_get_stats(bond->dev, &bond->bond_stats);
>>>>  
>>>> -	bond_upper_dev_unlink(bond, slave);
>>>>  	/* unregister rx_handler early so bond_handle_frame wouldn't be called
>>>>  	 * for this slave anymore.
>>>>  	 */
>>>>  	netdev_rx_handler_unregister(slave_dev);
>>>>  
>>>> +	/* Sync against bond_3ad_state_machine_handler() */
>>>> +	spin_lock_bh(&bond->mode_lock);
>>>> +	bond_upper_dev_unlink(bond, slave);
>>>
>>> this calls netdev_upper_dev_unlink() which calls call_netdevice_notifiers_info() for
>>> NETDEV_PRECHANGEUPPER and NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, both of which are allowed to sleep so you
>>> cannot hold the mode lock
>>
>> 	Indeed it does, I missed that the callbacks can sleep.
>>
> 
> Yes, I missed that too.
> 
>>> after netdev_rx_handler_unregister() the bond's recv_probe cannot be executed
>>> so you don't really need to unlink it under mode_lock or move mode_lock at all
>>
>> 	I don't think moving the call to netdev_rx_handler_unregister is
>> sufficient to close the race.  If it's moved above the call to
>> bond_upper_dev_unlink, the probe won't be called afterwards, but the
>> LACPDU could have arrived just prior to the unregister and changed the
>> port state in the bond_3ad_lacpdu_recv call sequence ("step 2",
>> something in the LACPDU causes AD_PORT_SELECTED to be cleared).  Later,
>> bond_3ad_state_machine_handler runs in a separate work queue context,
>> and could process the effect of the LACPDU after the rx_handler
>> unregister, and still race with the upper_dev_unlink.
>>
>> 	I suspect the solution is to rework ad_port_selection_logic to
>> correctly handle the situation where no aggregator is available.  Off
>> the top of my head, I think something along the lines of:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>> index 6908822d9773..eb6223e4510e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>> @@ -1537,6 +1537,10 @@ static void ad_port_selection_logic(struct port *port, bool *update_slave_arr)
>>  			slave_err(bond->dev, port->slave->dev,
>>  				  "Port %d did not find a suitable aggregator\n",
>>  				  port->actor_port_number);
>> +			aggregator = __get_first_agg(port);
>> +			ad_agg_selection_logic(aggregator, update_slave_arr);
>> +
>> +			return;
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>  	/* if all aggregator's ports are READY_N == TRUE, set ready=TRUE
>>
>> 	I've not compiled or tested this, but the theory is that it will
>> reselect a new aggregator for the bond (which happens anyway later in
>> the function), then returns, leaving "port" as not AD_PORT_SELECTED.
>> The next run of the state machine should attempt to select it again, and
>> presumably succeed at that time.
>>
>> 	This may leave the bond with no active ports for one interval
>> between runs of the state machine, unfortunately, but it should
>> eliminate the panic.
>>
>> 	Another possibility might be netdev_rx_handler_unregister, then
>> , and finally bond_upper_dev_unlink, but I'm not
>> sure right off if that would have other side effects.
>>
> 
> This may cause "%s: Warning: Found an uninitialized port\n" to be
> printed in bond_3ad_state_machine_handler(). But it doesn't matter.
> 
> In addition, I have analyzed the code in bond_3ad_unbind_slave().
> Even if the slaver is not deleted from the list, the process is
> not affected. This seems to work. Anyway, I will test it.
> 
>> 	Yufeng, would you be able to test the above and see if it
>> resolves the issue in your test?
>>
> 
> Sure,I will test both these two solution and report then.
> 
> Thanks Nikolay and Jay for the comments.
> 

I have tested these two solution and got result below:

solution 1: handle the situation where no aggregator is available
result: failed

I got a calltrace similar to the previous one. I think this is
because port->aggregator is still NULL after the modification.
The calltrace still occurs in the subsequent process.

log as below(bond0 with two slaver:eth0 and eth3):

$ ifenslave bond0 -d eth3
[87113.498148] bond0: (slave eth0): Port 1 did not find a suitable aggregator
[87113.504996] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000030
[87113.513741] Mem abort info:
[87113.516524]   ESR = 0x96000004
[87113.519567]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[87113.524856]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[87113.527898]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[87113.531026] Data abort info:
[87113.533894]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004
[87113.537713]   CM = 0, WnR = 0
[87113.540667] user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=00000020bfe17000
[87113.547078] [0000000000000030] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000
[87113.553840] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[87113.559387] Modules linked in: bonding hclgevf hns3 hclge hnae3 [last unloaded: bonding]
[87113.567445] CPU: 65 PID: 7 Comm: kworker/u256:0 Not tainted 5.13.0-rc4+ #1
[87113.574287] Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 V2/BC82AMDC, BIOS 2280-V2 CS V5.B110.01 01/07/2021
[87113.583116] Workqueue: bond0 bond_3ad_state_machine_handler [bonding]
[87113.589540] pstate: 80400009 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
[87113.595518] pc : bond_3ad_state_machine_handler+0x5b0/0xe40 [bonding]
[87113.601934] lr : bond_3ad_state_machine_handler+0x700/0xe40 [bonding]
[87113.608348] sp : ffff800010533d10
[87113.611648] x29: ffff800010533d10 x28: ffff800010533d90 x27: ffff0020bfe2d638
[87113.618750] x26: ffff00400166e940 x25: ffff00400166ebf0 x24: ffffdf65e83a8524
[87113.625852] x23: ffff800010533d88 x22: ffff00400166e900 x21: ffff0020bfe2d600
[87113.632956] x20: 0000000000000000 x19: ffff00400166e900 x18: 0000000000000030
[87113.640059] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: ffffdf66343c1350 x15: ffff00208d685b68
[87113.647162] x14: ffffffffffffffff x13: ffff800090533927 x12: ffff80001053392f
[87113.654264] x11: 0000000000000000 x10: ffff2047b7940000 x9 : ffffdf65e8395f9c
[87113.661368] x8 : ffff2047b7680000 x7 : ffff2047b7940000 x6 : 0000000000000000
[87113.668470] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000
[87113.675574] x2 : 000000000000003f x1 : 0000000000000004 x0 : 0000000000000003
[87113.682676] Call trace:
[87113.685113]  bond_3ad_state_machine_handler+0x5b0/0xe40 [bonding]
[87113.691183]  process_one_work+0x1dc/0x48c
[87113.695176]  worker_thread+0x15c/0x464
[87113.698908]  kthread+0x168/0x16c
[87113.702122]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[87113.705685] Code: 7104009f 54001820 52800060 b9004f60 (79406064)
[87113.711804] ---[ end trace 5bf403daf9e444eb ]---
[87113.721609] Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt
[87113.728476] SMP: stopping secondary CPUs
[87114.054358] Kernel Offset: 0x5f6624290000 from 0xffff800010000000
[87114.060423] PHYS_OFFSET: 0x0
[87114.063291] CPU features: 0x00000241,a3002c40
[87114.067628] Memory Limit: none
[87114.075727] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt ]---


solution 2: put bond_upper_dev_unlink() after bond_3ad_unbind_slave()
result: passed

The result is passed, except for a previously mentioned warning print.
In normal cases, this warning is not printed.

log as below(bond0 with two slaver:eth0 and eth3):

$ ifenslave bond0 -d eth3
[86653.902168] bond0: Warning: Found an uninitialized port
[86654.003515] bond0: (slave eth3): Releasing backup interface
[86654.031183] hns3 0000:7d:00.3 eth3: net stop
[86654.035823] hns3 0000:7d:00.3 eth3: link down


The solution 2 avoids the failure to find a suitable aggregator.
So I think the solution 2 seems to solve the problem better.

>> 	-J
>>
>>
>>>>  	if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_8023AD)
>>>>  		bond_3ad_unbind_slave(slave);
>>>> +	spin_unlock_bh(&bond->mode_lock);
>>>>  
>>>>  	if (bond_mode_can_use_xmit_hash(bond))
>>>>  		bond_update_slave_arr(bond, slave);
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> 	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
>> .
>>
> .
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2021-07-29  6:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-28  6:19 Yufeng Mo
2021-07-28  7:34 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-07-28  7:42   ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-07-28 19:05   ` Jay Vosburgh
2021-07-29  2:32     ` moyufeng
2021-07-29  6:28       ` moyufeng [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ed9423af-6cf2-2d9e-a31a-72cbe9f4ff73@huawei.com \
    --to=moyufeng@huawei.com \
    --cc=chenhao288@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=huangguangbin2@huawei.com \
    --cc=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
    --cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=linuxarm@openeuler.org \
    --cc=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
    --cc=lipeng321@huawei.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nikolay@nvidia.com \
    --cc=salil.mehta@huawei.com \
    --cc=shenjian15@huawei.com \
    --cc=yisen.zhuang@huawei.com \
    --cc=zhangjiaran@huawei.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: 3ad: fix the concurrency between __bond_release_one() and bond_3ad_state_machine_handler()' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).