[PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Vladimir Oltean]

Since commit 845e0ebb4408 ("net: change addr_list_lock back to static
key"), cascaded DSA setups (DSA switch port as DSA master for another
DSA switch port) are emitting this lockdep warning:

============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.8.0-rc1-00133-g923e4b5032dd-dirty #208 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
dhcpcd/323 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff000066dd4268 (&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90

but task is already holding lock:
ffff00006608c268 (&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1);
  lock(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

 May be due to missing lock nesting notation

3 locks held by dhcpcd/323:
 #0: ffffdbd1381dda18 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_lock+0x24/0x30
 #1: ffff00006614b268 (_xmit_ETHER){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_set_rx_mode+0x28/0x48
 #2: ffff00006608c268 (&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90

stack backtrace:
Call trace:
 dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1e0
 show_stack+0x20/0x30
 dump_stack+0xec/0x158
 __lock_acquire+0xca0/0x2398
 lock_acquire+0xe8/0x440
 _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x64/0x90
 dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
 dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x34/0x50
 __dev_set_rx_mode+0x60/0xa0
 dev_mc_sync+0x84/0x90
 dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x34/0x50
 __dev_set_rx_mode+0x60/0xa0
 dev_set_rx_mode+0x30/0x48
 __dev_open+0x10c/0x180
 __dev_change_flags+0x170/0x1c8
 dev_change_flags+0x2c/0x70
 devinet_ioctl+0x774/0x878
 inet_ioctl+0x348/0x3b0
 sock_do_ioctl+0x50/0x310
 sock_ioctl+0x1f8/0x580
 ksys_ioctl+0xb0/0xf0
 __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x28/0x38
 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x7c/0x180
 do_el0_svc+0x2c/0x98
 el0_sync_handler+0x9c/0x1b8
 el0_sync+0x158/0x180

Since DSA never made use of the netdev API for describing links between
upper devices and lower devices, the dev->lower_level value of a DSA
switch interface would be 1, which would warn when it is a DSA master.

We can use netdev_upper_dev_link() to describe the relationship between
a DSA slave and a DSA master. To be precise, a DSA "slave" (switch port)
is an "upper" to a DSA "master" (host port). The relationship is "many
uppers to one lower", like in the case of VLAN. So, for that reason, we
use the same function as VLAN uses.

Since this warning was not there when lockdep was using dynamic keys for
addr_list_lock, we are blaming the lockdep patch itself. The network
stack _has_ been using static lockdep keys before, and it _is_ likely
that stacked DSA setups have been triggering these lockdep warnings
since forever, however I can't test very old kernels on this particular
stacked DSA setup, to ensure I'm not in fact introducing regressions.

Fixes: 845e0ebb4408 ("net: change addr_list_lock back to static key")
Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
---
 net/dsa/slave.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
--- a/net/dsa/slave.c
+++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
@@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
 			   ret, slave_dev->name);
 		goto out_phy;
 	}
+	rtnl_lock();
+	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
+	rtnl_unlock();
+	if (ret) {
+		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
+		goto out_phy;
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 
@@ -2013,11 +2020,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
 
 void dsa_slave_destroy(struct net_device *slave_dev)
 {
+	struct net_device *master = dsa_slave_to_master(slave_dev);
 	struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_slave_to_port(slave_dev);
 	struct dsa_slave_priv *p = netdev_priv(slave_dev);
 
 	netif_carrier_off(slave_dev);
 	rtnl_lock();
+	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(master, slave_dev);
 	phylink_disconnect_phy(dp->pl);
 	rtnl_unlock();
 
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Andrew Lunn]

> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> @@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>  			   ret, slave_dev->name);
>  		goto out_phy;
>  	}
> +	rtnl_lock();
> +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> +	rtnl_unlock();
> +	if (ret) {
> +		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
> +		goto out_phy;
> +	}

Hi Vladimir

A common pattern we see in bugs is that the driver sets up something
critical after calling register_netdev(), not realising that that call
can go off and really start using the interface before it returns. So
in general, i like to have register_netdev() last, nothing after it.

Please could you move this before register_netdev().

Thanks
	Andrew

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:28PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
> > --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> > +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > @@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
> >  			   ret, slave_dev->name);
> >  		goto out_phy;
> >  	}
> > +	rtnl_lock();
> > +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> > +	rtnl_unlock();
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
> > +		goto out_phy;
> > +	}
> 
> Hi Vladimir
> 
> A common pattern we see in bugs is that the driver sets up something
> critical after calling register_netdev(), not realising that that call
> can go off and really start using the interface before it returns. So
> in general, i like to have register_netdev() last, nothing after it.
> 
> Please could you move this before register_netdev().
> 
> Thanks
> 	Andrew

It doesn't work after register_netdev(). The call to
netdev_upper_dev_link() fails and no network interface gets probed. VLAN
performs registration and linkage in the same order:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/net/8021q/vlan.c#n175

So I think this part is fine.

Thanks,
-Vladimir

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 08:30:49PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:28PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
> > > --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > @@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
> > >  			   ret, slave_dev->name);
> > >  		goto out_phy;
> > >  	}
> > > +	rtnl_lock();
> > > +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> > > +	rtnl_unlock();
> > > +	if (ret) {
> > > +		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
> > > +		goto out_phy;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Hi Vladimir
> > 
> > A common pattern we see in bugs is that the driver sets up something
> > critical after calling register_netdev(), not realising that that call
> > can go off and really start using the interface before it returns. So
> > in general, i like to have register_netdev() last, nothing after it.
> > 
> > Please could you move this before register_netdev().
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 	Andrew
> 
> It doesn't work after register_netdev(). The call to

I mean it doesn't work when netdev_upper_dev_link() is _before_
register_netdev().

> netdev_upper_dev_link() fails and no network interface gets probed. VLAN
> performs registration and linkage in the same order:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/net/8021q/vlan.c#n175
> 
> So I think this part is fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Vladimir

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 08:33:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 08:30:49PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:28PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > > index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
> > > > --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > > +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > > @@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
> > > >  			   ret, slave_dev->name);
> > > >  		goto out_phy;
> > > >  	}
> > > > +	rtnl_lock();
> > > > +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> > > > +	rtnl_unlock();
> > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > +		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
> > > > +		goto out_phy;
> > > > +	}
> > > 
> > > Hi Vladimir
> > > 
> > > A common pattern we see in bugs is that the driver sets up something
> > > critical after calling register_netdev(), not realising that that call
> > > can go off and really start using the interface before it returns. So
> > > in general, i like to have register_netdev() last, nothing after it.
> > > 
> > > Please could you move this before register_netdev().
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 	Andrew
> > 
> > It doesn't work after register_netdev(). The call to
> 
> I mean it doesn't work when netdev_upper_dev_link() is _before_
> register_netdev().
> 
> > netdev_upper_dev_link() fails and no network interface gets probed. VLAN
> > performs registration and linkage in the same order:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/net/8021q/vlan.c#n175
> > 
> > So I think this part is fine.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Vladimir

One difference from VLAN is that in that case, the entire
register_vlan_device() function runs under RTNL.
When those bugs that you talk about are found, who starts using the
network interface too early? User space or someone else? Would RTNL be
enough to avoid that?

Thanks,
-Vladimir

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Andrew Lunn]

> One difference from VLAN is that in that case, the entire
> register_vlan_device() function runs under RTNL.
> When those bugs that you talk about are found, who starts using the
> network interface too early? User space or someone else? Would RTNL be
> enough to avoid that?

NFS root. Registering the interface causes autoconfig to start,
sending a DHCP request, or if the IP addresses are fixed, it could
send an ARP for the NFS server.

It is just nice to have if it is before register_netdev(). I don't
think there is an actual issues in this case, being able to
send/receive packets should not depend on the upper/lower linkage for
DSA.

	Andrew

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[David Miller]

From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 20:42:27 +0300

> One difference from VLAN is that in that case, the entire
> register_vlan_device() function runs under RTNL.
> When those bugs that you talk about are found, who starts using the
> network interface too early? User space or someone else? Would RTNL be
> enough to avoid that?

As soon as the notifier is emitted by register_netdev(), userspace
like components such as NetworkManager can and do ifup the device
immediately.

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Florian Fainelli]

+ Jiri,

On 7/13/2020 9:24 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Since commit 845e0ebb4408 ("net: change addr_list_lock back to static
> key"), cascaded DSA setups (DSA switch port as DSA master for another
> DSA switch port) are emitting this lockdep warning:
> 
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 5.8.0-rc1-00133-g923e4b5032dd-dirty #208 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> dhcpcd/323 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff000066dd4268 (&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff00006608c268 (&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0
>        ----
>   lock(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1);
>   lock(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
>  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> 
> 3 locks held by dhcpcd/323:
>  #0: ffffdbd1381dda18 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_lock+0x24/0x30
>  #1: ffff00006614b268 (_xmit_ETHER){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_set_rx_mode+0x28/0x48
>  #2: ffff00006608c268 (&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
> 
> stack backtrace:
> Call trace:
>  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1e0
>  show_stack+0x20/0x30
>  dump_stack+0xec/0x158
>  __lock_acquire+0xca0/0x2398
>  lock_acquire+0xe8/0x440
>  _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x64/0x90
>  dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
>  dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x34/0x50
>  __dev_set_rx_mode+0x60/0xa0
>  dev_mc_sync+0x84/0x90
>  dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x34/0x50
>  __dev_set_rx_mode+0x60/0xa0
>  dev_set_rx_mode+0x30/0x48
>  __dev_open+0x10c/0x180
>  __dev_change_flags+0x170/0x1c8
>  dev_change_flags+0x2c/0x70
>  devinet_ioctl+0x774/0x878
>  inet_ioctl+0x348/0x3b0
>  sock_do_ioctl+0x50/0x310
>  sock_ioctl+0x1f8/0x580
>  ksys_ioctl+0xb0/0xf0
>  __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x28/0x38
>  el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x7c/0x180
>  do_el0_svc+0x2c/0x98
>  el0_sync_handler+0x9c/0x1b8
>  el0_sync+0x158/0x180
> 
> Since DSA never made use of the netdev API for describing links between
> upper devices and lower devices, the dev->lower_level value of a DSA
> switch interface would be 1, which would warn when it is a DSA master.
> 
> We can use netdev_upper_dev_link() to describe the relationship between
> a DSA slave and a DSA master. To be precise, a DSA "slave" (switch port)
> is an "upper" to a DSA "master" (host port). The relationship is "many
> uppers to one lower", like in the case of VLAN. So, for that reason, we
> use the same function as VLAN uses.
> 
> Since this warning was not there when lockdep was using dynamic keys for
> addr_list_lock, we are blaming the lockdep patch itself. The network
> stack _has_ been using static lockdep keys before, and it _is_ likely
> that stacked DSA setups have been triggering these lockdep warnings
> since forever, however I can't test very old kernels on this particular
> stacked DSA setup, to ensure I'm not in fact introducing regressions.
> 
> Fixes: 845e0ebb4408 ("net: change addr_list_lock back to static key")
> Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>

Jiri suggested not doing this a few years ago, but I do not remember the
reasons why he advised against doing it. Jiri does your objection still
stand today?

> ---
>  net/dsa/slave.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> @@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>  			   ret, slave_dev->name);
>  		goto out_phy;
>  	}
> +	rtnl_lock();
> +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> +	rtnl_unlock();
> +	if (ret) {
> +		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
> +		goto out_phy;
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  
> @@ -2013,11 +2020,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>  
>  void dsa_slave_destroy(struct net_device *slave_dev)
>  {
> +	struct net_device *master = dsa_slave_to_master(slave_dev);
>  	struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_slave_to_port(slave_dev);
>  	struct dsa_slave_priv *p = netdev_priv(slave_dev);
>  
>  	netif_carrier_off(slave_dev);
>  	rtnl_lock();
> +	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(master, slave_dev);
>  	phylink_disconnect_phy(dp->pl);
>  	rtnl_unlock();
>  
> 

-- 
Florian

Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: link interfaces with the DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 19:24:43 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 743caabeaaa6..a951b2a7d79a 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> @@ -1994,6 +1994,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>  			   ret, slave_dev->name);
>  		goto out_phy;
>  	}
> +	rtnl_lock();
> +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> +	rtnl_unlock();
> +	if (ret) {
> +		unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);

The error handling here looks sketchy.

First of all please move this unregister to the error path below, not
inside the body of the if.

Secondly as a rule of thumb the error path should resemble the destroy
function.

Here we have :

	unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
out_phy:
	rtnl_lock();
	phylink_disconnect_phy(p->dp->pl);
	rtnl_unlock();
	phylink_destroy(p->dp->pl);
out_gcells:
	gro_cells_destroy(&p->gcells);
out_free:
	free_percpu(p->stats64);
	free_netdev(slave_dev);
	port->slave = NULL;
	return ret;

vs.

	netif_carrier_off(slave_dev);
	rtnl_lock();
	phylink_disconnect_phy(dp->pl);
	rtnl_unlock();

	dsa_slave_notify(slave_dev, DSA_PORT_UNREGISTER);
	unregister_netdev(slave_dev);
	phylink_destroy(dp->pl);
	gro_cells_destroy(&p->gcells);
	free_percpu(p->stats64);
	free_netdev(slave_dev);


Ordering is different, plus you're missing the dsa_slave_notify() and
netif_carrier_off().

> +		goto out_phy;
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  
> @@ -2013,11 +2020,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>  
>  void dsa_slave_destroy(struct net_device *slave_dev)
>  {
> +	struct net_device *master = dsa_slave_to_master(slave_dev);
>  	struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_slave_to_port(slave_dev);
>  	struct dsa_slave_priv *p = netdev_priv(slave_dev);
>  
>  	netif_carrier_off(slave_dev);
>  	rtnl_lock();
> +	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(master, slave_dev);
>  	phylink_disconnect_phy(dp->pl);
>  	rtnl_unlock();