From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: Suspicious RCU usage in bridge with Linux v4.0-9362-g1fc149933fd4 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:53:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "David S. Miller" , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" , netdev , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , dac.override@gmail.com To: Josh Boyer Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > [ 29.382235] br0: port 1(tap0) entered forwarding state > > [ 29.382286] =============================== > [ 29.382315] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] > [ 29.382344] 4.1.0-0.rc0.git11.1.fc23.x86_64 #1 Not tainted > [ 29.382380] ------------------------------- > [ 29.382409] net/bridge/br_private.h:626 suspicious > rcu_dereference_check() usage! > [ 29.382455] > other info that might help us debug this: > > [ 29.382507] > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > [ 29.382549] 2 locks held by swapper/0/0: > [ 29.382576] #0: (((&p->forward_delay_timer))){+.-...}, at: > [] call_timer_fn+0x5/0x4f0 > [ 29.382660] #1: (&(&br->lock)->rlock){+.-...}, at: > [] br_forward_delay_timer_expired+0x31/0x140 > [bridge] > [ 29.382754] > stack backtrace: > [ 29.382787] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted > 4.1.0-0.rc0.git11.1.fc23.x86_64 #1 > [ 29.382838] Hardware name: LENOVO 422916G/LENOVO, BIOS A1KT53AUS 04/07/2015 > [ 29.382882] 0000000000000000 3ebfc20364115825 ffff880666603c48 > ffffffff81892d4b > [ 29.382943] 0000000000000000 ffffffff81e124e0 ffff880666603c78 > ffffffff8110bcd7 > [ 29.383004] ffff8800785c9d00 ffff88065485ac58 ffff880c62002800 > ffff880c5fc88ac0 > [ 29.383065] Call Trace: > [ 29.383084] [] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65 > [ 29.383130] [] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120 > [ 29.383178] [] br_fill_ifinfo+0x4a9/0x6a0 [bridge] > [ 29.383225] [] br_ifinfo_notify+0x11b/0x4b0 [bridge] > [ 29.383271] [] ? br_hold_timer_expired+0x70/0x70 [bridge] > [ 29.383320] [] > br_forward_delay_timer_expired+0x58/0x140 [bridge] > [ 29.383371] [] ? br_hold_timer_expired+0x70/0x70 [bridge] > [ 29.383416] [] call_timer_fn+0xc3/0x4f0 > [ 29.383454] [] ? call_timer_fn+0x5/0x4f0 > [ 29.383493] [] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.29+0xf/0x200 > [ 29.383541] [] ? br_hold_timer_expired+0x70/0x70 [bridge] > [ 29.383587] [] run_timer_softirq+0x244/0x490 > [ 29.383629] [] __do_softirq+0xec/0x670 > [ 29.383666] [] irq_exit+0x145/0x150 > [ 29.383703] [] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x46/0x60 > [ 29.383744] [] apic_timer_interrupt+0x73/0x80 > [ 29.383782] [] ? cpuidle_enter_state+0x5f/0x2f0 > [ 29.383832] [] ? cpuidle_enter_state+0x5b/0x2f0 > [ 29.383873] [] cpuidle_enter+0x17/0x20 > [ 29.383908] [] cpu_startup_entry+0x36f/0x5f0 > [ 29.383949] [] rest_init+0x13d/0x150 > [ 29.383986] [] start_kernel+0x4d2/0x4f3 > [ 29.384023] [] ? early_idt_handlers+0x120/0x120 > [ 29.384064] [] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c > [ 29.384105] [] x86_64_start_kernel+0x14a/0x16d We are dereferencing a RCU pointer with rtnl assert, but in the timer context we only have br->lock. It looks like we need to take RCU read lock on that path rather than asserting rtnl lock. Thanks for the report.