From: Philp Prindeville <philipp@redfish-solutions.com>
To: Feng Gao <gfree.wind@gmail.com>,
Gao Feng <fgao@48lvckh6395k16k5.yundunddos.com>
Cc: paulus@samba.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ppp: Fix one deadlock issue of PPP when send frame
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:11:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <96f03d73-73f9-23ac-591f-a855169f8dc9@redfish-solutions.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+6hz4qN-UmSutpCOY1KtrPBakh+2Qa+VUNVid7dq7EPWZE+aw@mail.gmail.com>
Feng,
If the CPU can already be holding the lock, that implies re-entrancy.
What's to stop the first flow of code which acquired the lock from
releasing it again before the 2nd flow is done? Is the 2nd flow running
at a higher priority or with interrupts disabled?
It seems unlikely to me that this sort of locking problem hasn't existed
elsewhere before and that an entirely new mechanism for handling it is
needed... How are similar re-entrancy issues handled elsewhere?
-Philip
On 08/16/2016 05:36 AM, Feng Gao wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> The v1 patch does not handle the recursive lock case. It could cause
> unlock multiple times.
> So I send the v2 patch as one update.
>
> Best Regards
> Feng
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:05 PM, <fgao@ikuai8.com> wrote:
>> From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>>
>> PPP channel holds one spinlock before send frame. But the skb may
>> select the same PPP channel with wrong route policy. As a result,
>> the skb reaches the same channel path. It tries to get the same
>> spinlock which is held before. Bang, the deadlock comes out.
>>
>> Now add one lock owner to avoid it like xmit_lock_owner of
>> netdev_queue. Check the lock owner before try to get the spinlock.
>> If the current cpu is already the owner, needn't lock again. When
>> PPP channel holds the spinlock at the first time, it sets owner
>> with current CPU ID.
>>
>> The following is the panic stack of 3.3.8. But the same issue
>> should be in the upstream too.
>>
>> [<ffffffff81568131>] ? _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x11/0x40
>> [<ffffffffa006a2b7>] ppp_unregister_channel+0x1347/0x2170 [ppp_generic]
>> [<ffffffff810a2827>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xa7/0xc0
>> [<ffffffffa006ad27>] ppp_unregister_channel+0x1db7/0x2170 [ppp_generic]
>> [<ffffffffa006afd5>] ppp_unregister_channel+0x2065/0x2170 [ppp_generic]
>> [<ffffffff8148f1dd>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x4cd/0x620
>> [<ffffffff814a6254>] sch_direct_xmit+0x74/0x1d0
>> [<ffffffff8148f88d>] dev_queue_xmit+0x1d/0x30
>> [<ffffffff81496a4c>] neigh_direct_output+0xc/0x10
>> [<ffffffff814d9dae>] ip_finish_output+0x25e/0x2b0
>> [<ffffffff814da688>] ip_output+0x88/0x90
>> [<ffffffff814d9e9f>] ? __ip_local_out+0x9f/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff814d9ed4>] ip_local_out+0x24/0x30
>> [<ffffffffa00b9745>] 0xffffffffa00b9744
>> [<ffffffffa006b068>] ppp_unregister_channel+0x20f8/0x2170 [ppp_generic]
>> [<ffffffffa006b202>] ppp_output_wakeup+0x122/0x11d0 [ppp_generic]
>> [<ffffffff810a7978>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x160
>> [<ffffffff810a7c55>] sys_write+0x45/0x90
>> [<ffffffff815689e2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>>
>> The call flow is like this.
>> ppp_write->ppp_channel_push->start_xmit->select inappropriate route
>> .... -> dev_hard_start_xmit->ppp_start_xmit->ppp_xmit_process->
>> ppp_push. Now ppp_push tries to get the same spinlock which is held
>> in ppp_channel_push.
>>
>> Although the PPP deadlock is caused by inappropriate route policy
>> with L2TP, I think it is not accepted the PPP module would cause kernel
>> deadlock with wrong route policy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>> ---
>> v1: Initial Patch
>>
>> drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> index 70cfa06..ffd0233 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
>> @@ -162,6 +162,29 @@ struct ppp {
>> |SC_MULTILINK|SC_MP_SHORTSEQ|SC_MP_XSHORTSEQ \
>> |SC_COMP_TCP|SC_REJ_COMP_TCP|SC_MUST_COMP)
>>
>> +struct chennel_lock {
>> + spinlock_t lock;
>> + u32 owner;
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_INIT(cl) \
>> + cl.owner = -1; \
>> + spin_lock_init(&cl.lock)
>> +
>> +#define PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_BH(cl) \
>> + do { \
>> + local_bh_disable(); \
>> + if (cl.owner != smp_processor_id()) { \
>> + spin_lock(&cl.lock); \
>> + cl.owner = smp_processor_id(); \
>> + } \
>> + } while (0)
>> +
>> +#define PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(cl) \
>> + cl.owner = -1; \
>> + spin_unlock(&cl.lock); \
>> + local_bh_enable()
>> +
>> /*
>> * Private data structure for each channel.
>> * This includes the data structure used for multilink.
>> @@ -171,7 +194,7 @@ struct channel {
>> struct list_head list; /* link in all/new_channels list */
>> struct ppp_channel *chan; /* public channel data structure */
>> struct rw_semaphore chan_sem; /* protects `chan' during chan ioctl */
>> - spinlock_t downl; /* protects `chan', file.xq dequeue */
>> + struct chennel_lock downl; /* protects `chan', file.xq dequeue */
>> struct ppp *ppp; /* ppp unit we're connected to */
>> struct net *chan_net; /* the net channel belongs to */
>> struct list_head clist; /* link in list of channels per unit */
>> @@ -1597,7 +1620,7 @@ ppp_push(struct ppp *ppp)
>> list = list->next;
>> pch = list_entry(list, struct channel, clist);
>>
>> - spin_lock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> if (pch->chan) {
>> if (pch->chan->ops->start_xmit(pch->chan, skb))
>> ppp->xmit_pending = NULL;
>> @@ -1606,7 +1629,7 @@ ppp_push(struct ppp *ppp)
>> kfree_skb(skb);
>> ppp->xmit_pending = NULL;
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1736,7 +1759,7 @@ static int ppp_mp_explode(struct ppp *ppp, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> }
>>
>> /* check the channel's mtu and whether it is still attached. */
>> - spin_lock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> if (pch->chan = NULL) {
>> /* can't use this channel, it's being deregistered */
>> if (pch->speed = 0)
>> @@ -1744,7 +1767,7 @@ static int ppp_mp_explode(struct ppp *ppp, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> else
>> totspeed -= pch->speed;
>>
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> pch->avail = 0;
>> totlen = len;
>> totfree--;
>> @@ -1795,7 +1818,7 @@ static int ppp_mp_explode(struct ppp *ppp, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> */
>> if (flen <= 0) {
>> pch->avail = 2;
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1840,14 +1863,14 @@ static int ppp_mp_explode(struct ppp *ppp, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> len -= flen;
>> ++ppp->nxseq;
>> bits = 0;
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> }
>> ppp->nxchan = i;
>>
>> return 1;
>>
>> noskb:
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> if (ppp->debug & 1)
>> netdev_err(ppp->dev, "PPP: no memory (fragment)\n");
>> ++ppp->dev->stats.tx_errors;
>> @@ -1865,7 +1888,7 @@ ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
>> struct sk_buff *skb;
>> struct ppp *ppp;
>>
>> - spin_lock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> if (pch->chan) {
>> while (!skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
>> skb = skb_dequeue(&pch->file.xq);
>> @@ -1879,7 +1902,7 @@ ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
>> /* channel got deregistered */
>> skb_queue_purge(&pch->file.xq);
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> /* see if there is anything from the attached unit to be sent */
>> if (skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
>> read_lock_bh(&pch->upl);
>> @@ -2520,7 +2543,7 @@ int ppp_register_net_channel(struct net *net, struct ppp_channel *chan)
>> pch->lastseq = -1;
>> #endif /* CONFIG_PPP_MULTILINK */
>> init_rwsem(&pch->chan_sem);
>> - spin_lock_init(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_INIT(pch->downl);
>> rwlock_init(&pch->upl);
>>
>> spin_lock_bh(&pn->all_channels_lock);
>> @@ -2599,9 +2622,9 @@ ppp_unregister_channel(struct ppp_channel *chan)
>> * the channel's start_xmit or ioctl routine before we proceed.
>> */
>> down_write(&pch->chan_sem);
>> - spin_lock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_LOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> pch->chan = NULL;
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
>> + PPP_CHANNEL_UNLOCK_BH(pch->downl);
>> up_write(&pch->chan_sem);
>> ppp_disconnect_channel(pch);
>>
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-18 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-16 11:05 [PATCH 1/1] ppp: Fix one deadlock issue of PPP when send frame fgao
2016-08-16 11:36 ` Feng Gao
2016-08-18 14:11 ` Philp Prindeville [this message]
2016-08-18 15:05 ` Feng Gao
2016-08-18 16:48 ` Philp Prindeville
2016-08-18 22:53 ` Feng Gao
2016-08-19 22:47 ` Guillaume Nault
2016-08-19 15:16 ` [PATCH 1/1] ppp: Fix one deadlock issue of PPP when reentrant fgao
2016-08-19 21:48 ` Guillaume Nault
2016-08-20 6:40 ` Feng Gao
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=96f03d73-73f9-23ac-591f-a855169f8dc9@redfish-solutions.com \
--to=philipp@redfish-solutions.com \
--cc=fgao@48lvckh6395k16k5.yundunddos.com \
--cc=gfree.wind@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).