On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 07:05:31PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > On giovedì 17 febbraio 2022 17:41:22 CET syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > > > syzbot found the following issue on: > > > > HEAD commit: c832962ac972 net: bridge: multicast: notify switchdev driv.. > > git tree: net > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=16b157bc700000 > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=266de9da75c71a45 > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=4f322a6d84e991c38775 > > compiler: gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2 > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet. > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > > Reported-by: syzbot+4f322a6d84e991c38775@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > infiniband syz1: set down > > infiniband syz1: added lo > > RDS/IB: syz1: added > > smc: adding ib device syz1 with port count 1 > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:577 > > in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 17974, name: syz-executor.3 > > preempt_count: 1, expected: 0 > > RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0 > > 6 locks held by syz-executor.3/17974: > > #0: ffffffff90865838 (&rdma_nl_types[idx].sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: rdma_nl_rcv_msg+0x161/0x690 drivers/infiniband/core/netlink.c:164 > > #1: ffffffff8d04edf0 (link_ops_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: nldev_newlink+0x25d/0x560 drivers/infiniband/core/nldev.c:1707 > > #2: ffffffff8d03e650 (devices_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: enable_device_and_get+0xfc/0x3b0 drivers/infiniband/core/device.c:1321 > > #3: ffffffff8d03e510 (clients_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: enable_device_and_get+0x15b/0x3b0 drivers/infiniband/core/device.c:1329 > > #4: ffff8880482c85c0 (&device->client_data_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: add_client_context+0x3d0/0x5e0 drivers/infiniband/core/device.c:718 > > #5: ffff8880230a4118 (&pnettable->lock){++++}-{2:2}, at: smc_pnetid_by_table_ib+0x18c/0x470 net/smc/smc_pnet.c:1159 > > Preemption disabled at: > > [<0000000000000000>] 0x0 > > CPU: 1 PID: 17974 Comm: syz-executor.3 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc3-syzkaller-00170-gc832962ac972 #0 > > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 > > Call Trace: > > <TASK> > > __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] > > dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106 > > __might_resched.cold+0x222/0x26b kernel/sched/core.c:9576 > > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:577 [inline] > > __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x12f0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:733 > > smc_pnet_apply_ib+0x28/0x160 net/smc/smc_pnet.c:251 > > smc_pnetid_by_table_ib+0x2ae/0x470 net/smc/smc_pnet.c:1164 > > If I recall it well, read_lock() disables preemption. > > smc_pnetid_by_table_ib() uses read_lock() and then it calls smc_pnet_apply_ib() > which, in turn, calls mutex_lock(&smc_ib_devices.mutex). Therefore the code > acquires a mutex while in atomic and we get a SAC bug. > > Actually, even if my argument is correct(?), I don't know if the read_lock() > in smc_pnetid_by_table_ib() can be converted to a sleeping lock like a mutex or > a semaphore. Take the email above. I think it is safe to convert read_lock() to mutex, which is already used by smc_ib_devices.mutex. Thank you, Tony Lu
