Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:59 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +
>>> +#define NUM_PKTS 10
>>
>> I'm afraid this needs more work.
>> Just bumping above to 1M I got:
>> [ 254.165911] ================================
>> [ 254.166387] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
>> [ 254.166882] 5.16.0-rc7-02011-g64923127f1b3 #3784 Tainted: G O
>> [ 254.167659] --------------------------------
>> [ 254.168140] inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
>> [ 254.168793] swapper/7/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[5]:HE1:SE0] takes:
>> [ 254.169373] ffff888113d24220 (&r->producer_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at:
>> veth_xmit+0x361/0x830
>> [ 254.170317] {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>> [ 254.170921] lock_acquire+0x18a/0x450
>> [ 254.171371] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
>> [ 254.171815] veth_xdp_xmit+0x1d7/0x8c0
>> [ 254.172241] veth_ndo_xdp_xmit+0x1d/0x50
>> [ 254.172689] bq_xmit_all+0x562/0xc30
>> [ 254.173159] __dev_flush+0xb1/0x220
>> [ 254.173586] xdp_do_flush+0xa/0x20
>> [ 254.173983] xdp_test_run_batch.constprop.25+0x90c/0xf00
>> [ 254.174564] bpf_test_run_xdp_live+0x369/0x480
>> [ 254.175038] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0x63f/0xe50
>> [ 254.175512] __sys_bpf+0x688/0x4410
>> [ 254.175923] __x64_sys_bpf+0x75/0xb0
>> [ 254.176327] do_syscall_64+0x34/0x80
>> [ 254.176733] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>> [ 254.177297] irq event stamp: 130862
>> [ 254.177681] hardirqs last enabled at (130862):
>> [<ffffffff812d0812>] call_rcu+0x2a2/0x640
>> [ 254.178561] hardirqs last disabled at (130861):
>> [<ffffffff812d08bd>] call_rcu+0x34d/0x640
>> [ 254.179404] softirqs last enabled at (130814):
>> [<ffffffff83c00534>] __do_softirq+0x534/0x835
>> [ 254.180332] softirqs last disabled at (130839):
>> [<ffffffff811389f7>] irq_exit_rcu+0xe7/0x120
>> [ 254.181255]
>> [ 254.181255] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 254.181969] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 254.183172] lock(&r->producer_lock);
>> [ 254.183590] <Interrupt>
>> [ 254.183893] lock(&r->producer_lock);
>> [ 254.184321]
>> [ 254.184321] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [ 254.184321]
>> [ 254.185047] 5 locks held by swapper/7/0:
>> [ 254.185501] #0: ffff8881f6d89db8 ((&ndev->rs_timer)){+.-.}-{0:0},
>> at: call_timer_fn+0xc8/0x440
>> [ 254.186496] #1: ffffffff854415e0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
>> ndisc_send_skb+0x761/0x12e0
>> [ 254.187444] #2: ffffffff85441580 (rcu_read_lock_bh){....}-{1:2},
>> at: ip6_finish_output2+0x2da/0x1e00
>> [ 254.188447] #3: ffffffff85441580 (rcu_read_lock_bh){....}-{1:2},
>> at: __dev_queue_xmit+0x1de/0x2910
>> [ 254.189502] #4: ffffffff854415e0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
>> veth_xmit+0x41/0x830
>> [ 254.190455]
>> [ 254.190455] stack backtrace:
>> [ 254.190963] CPU: 7 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/7 Tainted: G O
>> 5.16.0-rc7-02011-g64923127f1b3 #3784
>> [ 254.192109] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996),
>> BIOS rel-1.12.0-59-gc9ba5276e321-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
>> [ 254.193427] Call Trace:
>> [ 254.193711] <IRQ>
>> [ 254.193945] dump_stack_lvl+0x44/0x57
>> [ 254.194418] mark_lock.part.54+0x157b/0x2210
>> [ 254.194940] ? mark_lock.part.54+0xfd/0x2210
>> [ 254.195451] ? print_usage_bug+0x80/0x80
>> [ 254.195896] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x91/0xc0
>> [ 254.196413] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xa0/0xa0
>> [ 254.196903] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xa0/0xa0
>> [ 254.197389] ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x1c0
>> [ 254.197826] ? lock_release+0x3a1/0x650
>> [ 254.198251] ? __stack_depot_save+0x274/0x490
>> [ 254.198742] ? lock_acquire+0x19a/0x450
>> [ 254.199175] ? lock_downgrade+0x690/0x690
>> [ 254.199626] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11d/0x270
>> [ 254.200091] ? rwlock_bug.part.2+0x90/0x90
>> [ 254.200550] __lock_acquire+0x151f/0x6310
>> [ 254.201000] ? mark_lock.part.54+0xfd/0x2210
>> [ 254.201470] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x3f0/0x3f0
>> [ 254.202083] ? lock_is_held_type+0xda/0x130
>> [ 254.202592] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x91/0xc0
>> [ 254.203134] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xa0/0xa0
>> [ 254.203630] lock_acquire+0x18a/0x450
>> [ 254.204041] ? veth_xmit+0x361/0x830
>> [ 254.204455] ? lock_release+0x650/0x650
>> [ 254.204932] ? eth_gro_receive+0xc60/0xc60
>> [ 254.205421] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0x91/0xa0
>> [ 254.205912] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
>> [ 254.206314] ? veth_xmit+0x361/0x830
>> [ 254.206707] veth_xmit+0x361/0x830
>>
>> I suspect it points out that local_bh_disable is needed
>> around xdp_do_flush.
>>
>> That's why I asked you to test it with something
>> more than 3 in NUM_PKTS.
>> What values did you test it with? I hope not just 10.
>>
>> Please make sure XDP_PASS/TX/REDIRECT are all stress tested.
>
> Okay, finally managed to reproduce this; it did not show up at all in my
> own tests.
>
> Did you run the old version of the selftest by any chance? At least I
> can only reproduce it with the forwarding sysctl enabled; it happens
> because the XDP_PASS path races with the XDP_REDIRECT path and end up
> trying to grab the same lock, which only happens when the XDP_PASS path
> sends the packets back out the same interface. The fix is to extend the
> local_bh_disable() to cover the full loop in xdp_test_run_batch().
>
> I'll send an update with that fixed. But I'm not sure what to do about
> the selftest? I can keep the forwarding enabled + 1 million iterations -
> that seems to trigger the bug fairly reliably for me, but it takes a bit
> longer to run. Is that acceptable?
The absolute difference is just over three seconds on my machine, BTW:
1M pkts:
[root@(none) bpf]# time ./test_progs -a xdp_do_redirect
#221 xdp_do_redirect:OK
Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
real 0m5,042s
user 0m0,109s
sys 0m3,968s
10 pkts:
[root@(none) bpf]# time ./test_progs -a xdp_do_redirect
#221 xdp_do_redirect:OK
Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
real 0m1,823s
user 0m0,117s
sys 0m0,685s
-Toke
