Re: [PATCH 1/1] RDMA/rxe: Fix the error "trying to register non-static key in rxe_cleanup_task"

[Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>]

在 2023/4/4 2:10, Leon Romanovsky 写道:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 10:44:17AM +0800, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> > From: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > In the function rxe_create_qp(), rxe_qp_from_init() is called to
> > initialize qp, internally things like rxe_init_task are not setup until
> > rxe_qp_init_req().
> >
> > If an error occures before this point then the unwind will call
> > rxe_cleanup() and eventually to rxe_qp_do_cleanup()/rxe_cleanup_task()
> > which will oops when trying to access the uninitialized spinlock.
> >
> > If rxe_init_task is not executed, rxe_cleanup_task will not be called.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+cfcc1a3c85be15a40cba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=fd85757b74b3eb59f904138486f755f71e090df8
> >
> > Fixes: 8700e3e7c485 ("Soft RoCE driver")
> > Fixes: 2d4b21e0a291 ("IB/rxe: Prevent from completer to operate on non valid QP")
> > Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> > index ab72db68b58f..7856c02c1b46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_qp.c
> > @@ -176,6 +176,10 @@ static void rxe_qp_init_misc(struct rxe_dev *rxe, struct rxe_qp *qp,
> >   	spin_lock_init(&qp->rq.producer_lock);
> >   	spin_lock_init(&qp->rq.consumer_lock);
> >   
> > +	memset(&qp->req.task, 0, sizeof(struct rxe_task));
> > +	memset(&qp->comp.task, 0, sizeof(struct rxe_task));
> > +	memset(&qp->resp.task, 0, sizeof(struct rxe_task));
> IMHO QP is already zeroed here.

Sure. Exactly. Here I just confirm that req.task, comp.task and 
resp.task are zeroed explicitly.

If you think it had better remove these memset functions, I will follow 
your advice.

Please let me know your advice.

> Please don't send patches as reply-to.

Got it. I will follow your advice.

Thanks,

Zhu Yanjun

> Thanks
>
> > +
> >   	atomic_set(&qp->ssn, 0);
> >   	atomic_set(&qp->skb_out, 0);
> >   }
> > @@ -773,15 +777,20 @@ static void rxe_qp_do_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
> >   
> >   	qp->valid = 0;
> >   	qp->qp_timeout_jiffies = 0;
> > -	rxe_cleanup_task(&qp->resp.task);
> > +
> > +	if (qp->resp.task.func)
> > +		rxe_cleanup_task(&qp->resp.task);
> >   
> >   	if (qp_type(qp) == IB_QPT_RC) {
> >   		del_timer_sync(&qp->retrans_timer);
> >   		del_timer_sync(&qp->rnr_nak_timer);
> >   	}
> >   
> > -	rxe_cleanup_task(&qp->req.task);
> > -	rxe_cleanup_task(&qp->comp.task);
> > +	if (qp->req.task.func)
> > +		rxe_cleanup_task(&qp->req.task);
> > +
> > +	if (qp->comp.task.func)
> > +		rxe_cleanup_task(&qp->comp.task);
> >   
> >   	/* flush out any receive wr's or pending requests */
> >   	if (qp->req.task.func)
> > --
> > 2.27.0