Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for your reply!
On 2019/10/18 21:58, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Matthew]
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:36:23PM +0800, Xiang Zheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Recently I encountered a kernel panic while doing vfio-pci hot-plug/unplug test repeatly on my Arm-KVM virtual machines.
>> See the call stack below:
>>
>> [66628.697280] vfio-pci 0000:06:03.5: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [66628.809290] vfio-pci 0000:06:03.1: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [66628.921283] vfio-pci 0000:06:02.7: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [66629.029280] vfio-pci 0000:06:03.6: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [66629.137338] vfio-pci 0000:06:03.2: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [66629.249285] vfio-pci 0000:06:03.7: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [66630.237261] Unable to handle kernel read from unreadable memory at virtual address ffff802dac469000
>> [66630.246266] Mem abort info:
>> [66630.249047] ESR = 0x8600000d
>> [66630.252088] Exception class = IABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
>> [66630.257981] SET = 0, FnV = 0
>> [66630.261022] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
>> [66630.264150] swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp = 00000000fb16886e
>> [66630.270992] [ffff802dac469000] pgd=0000203fffff6803, pud=00e8002d80000f11
>> [66630.277751] Internal error: Oops: 8600000d [#1] SMP
>> [66630.282606] Process qemu-kvm (pid: 37201, stack limit = 0x00000000d8f19858)
>> [66630.289537] CPU: 41 PID: 37201 Comm: qemu-kvm Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 4.19.36-vhulk1907.1.0.h453.eulerosv2r8.aarch64 #1
>> [66630.301822] Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 V2/BC82AMDDA, BIOS 0.88 07/24/2019
>> [66630.309270] pstate: 80400089 (Nzcv daIf +PAN -UAO)
>> [66630.314042] pc : 0xffff802dac469000
>> [66630.317519] lr : __wake_up_common+0x90/0x1a8
>> [66630.321768] sp : ffff00027746bb00
>> [66630.325067] x29: ffff00027746bb00 x28: 0000000000000000
>> [66630.330355] x27: 0000000000000000 x26: ffff0000092755b8
>> [66630.335643] x25: 0000000000000000 x24: 0000000000000000
>> [66630.340930] x23: 0000000000000003 x22: ffff00027746bbc0
>> [66630.346219] x21: 000000000954c000 x20: ffff0001f542bc6c
>> [66630.351506] x19: ffff0001f542bb90 x18: 0000000000000000
>> [66630.356793] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
>> [66630.362081] x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0000000000000000
>> [66630.367368] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
>> [66630.372655] x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000bb0
>> [66630.377942] x9 : ffff00027746ba50 x8 : ffff80367ff6ca10
>> [66630.383229] x7 : ffff802e20d59200 x6 : 000000000000003f
>> [66630.388517] x5 : ffff00027746bbc0 x4 : ffff802dac469000
>> [66630.393806] x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000
>> [66630.399093] x1 : 0000000000000003 x0 : ffff0001f542bb90
>> [66630.404381] Call trace:
>> [66630.406818] 0xffff802dac469000
>> [66630.409945] __wake_up_common_lock+0xa8/0x1a0
>> [66630.414283] __wake_up+0x40/0x50
>> [66630.417499] pci_cfg_access_unlock+0x9c/0xd0
>> [66630.421752] pci_try_reset_function+0x58/0x78
>> [66630.426095] vfio_pci_ioctl+0x478/0xdb8 [vfio_pci]
>> [66630.430870] vfio_device_fops_unl_ioctl+0x44/0x70 [vfio]
>> [66630.436158] do_vfs_ioctl+0xc4/0x8c0
>> [66630.439718] ksys_ioctl+0x8c/0xa0
>> [66630.443018] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x28/0x38
>> [66630.446925] el0_svc_common+0x78/0x130
>> [66630.450657] el0_svc_handler+0x38/0x78
>> [66630.454389] el0_svc+0x8/0xc
>> [66630.457260] Code: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 (ac46d000)
>> [66630.463325] kernel fault(0x1) notification starting on CPU 41
>> [66630.469044] kernel fault(0x1) notification finished on CPU 41
>>
>> The chance to reproduce this problem is very small. We had an initial analysis of this problem,
>> and found it was caused by the illegal value of the 'curr->func' in the __wake_up_common() function.
>>
>> I cannot image how 'curr->func' can be wrote to 0xffff802dac469000. Is there any problem about
>> concurrent competition between the pci_wait_cfg() function and the wake_up_all() function?
>
> I haven't heard of a problem there, but that doesn't mean there isn't
> one.
>
> The fact that pci_wait_cfg() uses __add_wait_queue() (not
> add_wait_queue(), which does more locking) makes me a little
> suspicious. Most of the other callers of __add_wait_queue() acquire
> the wait_queue lock themselves, but pci_wait_cfg() doesn't.
>
> This was added by 7ea7e98fd8d0 ("PCI: Block on access to temporarily
> unavailable pci device"), and the commit log suggests that the
> pci_lock is sufficient. All callers of pci_wait_cfg() do hold
> pci_lock, and the "pci_cfg_wait" queue is private, but ...
> pci_cfg_access_unlock() calls wake_up_all(&pci_cfg_wait) *without*
> holding pci_lock. That path leads to __wake_up_common_lock(), which
> depends on wq_head->lock, which pci_wait_cfg() doesn't use.
Yes, we was also suspicious about this point and had a further analysis of this problem.
We found that the "pci_cfg_wait" queue was empty when the "curr->func" callback function
was called:
crash> p pci_cfg_wait.head
$2 = {
next = 0xffff0000092755b8 <pci_cfg_wait+8>,
prev = 0xffff0000092755b8 <pci_cfg_wait+8>
}
crash> p &(pci_cfg_wait.head)
$3 = (struct list_head *) 0xffff0000092755b8 <pci_cfg_wait+8>
crash>
The "ps" command also shows that there was no processes on "UN" state at that time.
According to the above two clues, we finally reached a conclusion: there must be two processes,
'A' was calling pci_wait_cfg() and 'B' was calling __wake_up_common(). And there is a very
small chance that 'A' called __remove_wait_queue() before 'B' called the "curr->func", after
'B' got the queue entry "curr". Since the queue entry was a local variable, it would be
invalid after pci_wait_cfg() returned and eventually we got an invalid value of "curr->func".
In order to verify this conclusion, we add a delay(e.g. 300ms) before calling "curr->func"
in the __wake_up_common() function. Then this problem can be easily reproduced.
>
> pci_cfg_access_unlock() originally *did* hold pci_lock while calling
> wake_up_all(), but I changed that with cdcb33f98244 ("PCI: Avoid
> possible deadlock on pci_lock and p->pi_lock") without understanding
> both sides of the wait_queue locking issue.
Before your change was merged, any operations to the "pci_cfg_wait" was safe because they all
did hold pci_lock. So the pci_lock was sufficient.
>
> But I still don't understand enough to know whether this is actually
> the problem or to propose a fix.
I think we need to fix it. A simple solution is to use add_wait_queue()/remove_wait_queue()
instead of __add_wait_queue()/__remove_wait_queue() and this works for me. What do you think?
>
> Bjorn
>
> .
>
--
Thanks,
Xiang
