On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 4:44 PM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:19 PM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:39 AM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jason,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 6:31 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 5:44 PM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Jason & others,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:33 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:15 PM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Stefan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 2:12 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:00:08AM +0100, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We have started to observe kernel crashes on 6.7.y kernels (atm we
> > > > > > > > > have hit the issue 5 times on 6.7.5 and 6.7.10). On 6.6.9 where we
> > > > > > > > > have nodes of cluster it looks stable. Please see stacktrace below. If
> > > > > > > > > you need more information please let me know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We do not have a consistent reproducer but when we put some bigger
> > > > > > > > > network load on a VM, the hypervisor's kernel crashes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Help is much appreciated! We are happy to test any patches.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CCing Michael Tsirkin and Jason Wang for vhost_net.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [62254.167584] stack segment: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
> > > > > > > > > [62254.173450] CPU: 63 PID: 11939 Comm: vhost-11890 Tainted: G
> > > > > > > > > E 6.7.10-1.gdc.el9.x86_64 #1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are there any patches in this kernel?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only one, unrelated to this part. Removal of pr_err("EEVDF scheduling
> > > > > > > fail, picking leftmost\n"); line (reported somewhere few months ago
> > > > > > > and it was suggested workaround until proper solution comes).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Btw, a bisection would help as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the end it seems like we don't really have "stable" setup, so
> > > > > bisection looks to be useless but we did find few things meantime:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. On 6.6.9 it crashes either with unexpected GSO type or usercopy:
> > > > > Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object
> > > > > 'skbuff_head_cache'
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a full calltrace for this?
> > >
> > > I have shared it in one of the messages in this thread.
> > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-virtualization&m=171085443512001&w=2
> > >
> > > > > 2. On 6.7.5, 6.7.10 and 6.8.1 it crashes with RIP:
> > > > > 0010:skb_release_data+0xb8/0x1e0
> > > >
> > > > And for this?
> > >
> > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=171083870801761&w=2
> > >
> > > > > 3. It does NOT crash on 6.8.1 when VM does not have multi-queue setup
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like the multi-queue setup (we have 2 interfaces × 3 virtio
> > > > > queues for each) is causing problems as if we set only one queue for
> > > > > each interface the issue is gone.
> > > > > Maybe there is some race condition in __pfx_vhost_task_fn+0x10/0x10 or
> > > > > somewhere around?
> > > >
> > > > I can't tell now, but it seems not because if we have 3 queue pairs we
> > > > will have 3 vhost threads.
> > > >
> > > > > We have noticed that there are 3 of such functions
> > > > > in the stacktrace that gave us hints about what we could try…
> > > >
> > > > Let's try to enable SLUB_DEBUG and KASAN to see if we can get
> > > > something interesting.
> > >
> > > We were able to reproduce it even with 1 vhost queue... And now we
> > > have slub_debug + kasan so I hopefully have more useful data for you
> > > now.
> > > I have attached it for better readability.
> >
> > Looks like we have found a "stable" kernel and that is 6.1.32. The
> > 6.3.y is broken and we are testing 6.2.y now.
> > My guess it would be related to virtio/vsock: replace virtio_vsock_pkt
> > with sk_buff that was done around that time but we are going to test,
> > bisect and let you know more.
>
> So we have been trying to bisect it but it is basically impossible for
> us to do so as the ICE driver was quite broken for most of the release
> cycle so we have no networking on 99% of the builds and we can't test
> such a setup.
> More specifically, the bug was introduced between 6.2 and 6.3 but we
> could not get much further. The last good commit we were able to test
> was f18f9845f2f10d3d1fc63e4ad16ee52d2d9292fa and then after 20 commits
> where we had no networking we gave up.
>
> If you have some suspicious commit(s) we could revert - happy to test.
Here is the is for the change since f18f9845f2f10d3d1fc63e4ad16ee52d2d9292fa:
cbfbfe3aee71 tun: prevent negative ifindex
b2f8323364ab tun: add __exit annotations to module exit func tun_cleanup()
6231e47b6fad tun: avoid high-order page allocation for packet header
4d016ae42efb Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net
59eeb2329405 drivers: net: prevent tun_build_skb() to exceed the
packet size limit
35b1b1fd9638 Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net
ce7c7fef1473 net: tun: change tun_alloc_skb() to allow bigger paged allocations
9bc3047374d5 net: tun_chr_open(): set sk_uid from current_fsuid()
82b2bc279467 tun: Fix memory leak for detached NAPI queue.
6e98b09da931 Merge tag 'net-next-6.4' of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next
de4f5fed3f23 iov_iter: add iter_iovec() helper
438b406055cd tun: flag the device as supporting FMODE_NOWAIT
de4287336794 Daniel Borkmann says:
a096ccca6e50 tun: tun_chr_open(): correctly initialize socket uid
66c0e13ad236 drivers: net: turn on XDP features
The commit that touches the datapath are:
6231e47b6fad tun: avoid high-order page allocation for packet header
59eeb2329405 drivers: net: prevent tun_build_skb() to exceed the
packet size limit
ce7c7fef1473 net: tun: change tun_alloc_skb() to allow bigger paged allocations
82b2bc279467 tun: Fix memory leak for detached NAPI queue.
de4f5fed3f23 iov_iter: add iter_iovec() helper
I assume you didn't use NAPI mode, so 82b2bc279467 tun: Fix memory
leak for detached NAPI queue doesn't make sense for us.
The rest might be the bad commit if it is caused by a change of tun itself.
btw I vaguely remember KASAN will report who did the allocation and
who did the free. But it seems not in your KASAN log.
Thanks
>
> Thanks again.
>
