> >>>>> From: Yacan Liu <liuyacan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After modifying the QP to the Error state, all RX WR would be completed
> >>>>> with WC in IB_WC_WR_FLUSH_ERR status. Current implementation does not
> >>>>> wait for it is done, but destroy the QP and free the link group directly.
> >>>>> So there is a risk that accessing the freed memory in tasklet context.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is a crash example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffff8f220860
> >>>>> #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
> >>>>> #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
> >>>>> PGD f7300e067 P4D f7300e067 PUD f7300f063 PMD 8c4e45063 PTE 800ffff08c9df060
> >>>>> Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP PTI
> >>>>> CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S OE 5.10.0-0607+ #23
> >>>>> Hardware name: Inspur NF5280M4/YZMB-00689-101, BIOS 4.1.20 07/09/2018
> >>>>> RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x176/0x1b0
> >>>>> Code: f3 90 48 8b 32 48 85 f6 74 f6 eb d5 c1 ee 12 83 e0 03 83 ee 01 48 c1 e0 05 48 63 f6 48 05 00 c8 02 00 48 03 04 f5 00 09 98 8e <48> 89 10 8b 42 08 85 c0 75 09 f3 90 8b 42 08 85 c0 74 f7 48 8b 32
> >>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffb3b6c001ebd8 EFLAGS: 00010086
> >>>>> RAX: ffffffff8f220860 RBX: 0000000000000246 RCX: 0000000000080000
> >>>>> RDX: ffff91db1f86c800 RSI: 000000000000173c RDI: ffff91db62bace00
> >>>>> RBP: ffff91db62bacc00 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: c00000010000028b
> >>>>> R10: 0000000000055198 R11: ffffb3b6c001ea58 R12: ffff91db80e05010
> >>>>> R13: 000000000000000a R14: 0000000000000006 R15: 0000000000000040
> >>>>> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff91db1f840000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> >>>>> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> >>>>> CR2: ffffffff8f220860 CR3: 00000001f9580004 CR4: 00000000003706e0
> >>>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> >>>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> >>>>> Call Trace:
> >>>>> <IRQ>
> >>>>> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x30/0x40
> >>>>> mlx5_ib_poll_cq+0x4c/0xc50 [mlx5_ib]
> >>>>> smc_wr_rx_tasklet_fn+0x56/0xa0 [smc]
> >>>>> tasklet_action_common.isra.21+0x66/0x100
> >>>>> __do_softirq+0xd5/0x29c
> >>>>> asm_call_irq_on_stack+0x12/0x20
> >>>>> </IRQ>
> >>>>> do_softirq_own_stack+0x37/0x40
> >>>>> irq_exit_rcu+0x9d/0xa0
> >>>>> sysvec_call_function_single+0x34/0x80
> >>>>> asm_sysvec_call_function_single+0x12/0x20
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: bd4ad57718cc ("smc: initialize IB transport incl. PD, MR, QP, CQ, event, WR")
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yacan Liu <liuyacan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Chagen in v4:
> >>>>> -- Remove the rx_drain flag because smc_wr_rx_post() may not have been called.
> >>>>> -- Remove timeout.
> >>>>> Change in v3:
> >>>>> -- Tune commit message (Signed-Off tag, Fixes tag).
> >>>>> Tune code to avoid column length exceeding.
> >>>>> Change in v2:
> >>>>> -- Fix some compile warnings and errors.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> net/smc/smc_core.c | 2 ++
> >>>>> net/smc/smc_core.h | 2 ++
> >>>>> net/smc/smc_wr.c | 9 +++++++++
> >>>>> net/smc/smc_wr.h | 1 +
> >>>>> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
> >>>>> index ff49a11f5..f92a916e9 100644
> >>>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
> >>>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
> >>>>> @@ -757,6 +757,7 @@ int smcr_link_init(struct smc_link_group *lgr, struct smc_link *lnk,
> >>>>> lnk->lgr = lgr;
> >>>>> smc_lgr_hold(lgr); /* lgr_put in smcr_link_clear() */
> >>>>> lnk->link_idx = link_idx;
> >>>>> + lnk->wr_rx_id_compl = 0;
> >>>>> smc_ibdev_cnt_inc(lnk);
> >>>>> smcr_copy_dev_info_to_link(lnk);
> >>>>> atomic_set(&lnk->conn_cnt, 0);
> >>>>> @@ -1269,6 +1270,7 @@ void smcr_link_clear(struct smc_link *lnk, bool log)
> >>>>> smcr_buf_unmap_lgr(lnk);
> >>>>> smcr_rtoken_clear_link(lnk);
> >>>>> smc_ib_modify_qp_error(lnk);
> >>>>> + smc_wr_drain_cq(lnk);
> >>>>> smc_wr_free_link(lnk);
> >>>>> smc_ib_destroy_queue_pair(lnk);
> >>>>> smc_ib_dealloc_protection_domain(lnk);
> >>>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.h b/net/smc/smc_core.h
> >>>>> index fe8b524ad..285f9bd8e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.h
> >>>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.h
> >>>>> @@ -115,8 +115,10 @@ struct smc_link {
> >>>>> dma_addr_t wr_rx_dma_addr; /* DMA address of wr_rx_bufs */
> >>>>> dma_addr_t wr_rx_v2_dma_addr; /* DMA address of v2 rx buf*/
> >>>>> u64 wr_rx_id; /* seq # of last recv WR */
> >>>>> + u64 wr_rx_id_compl; /* seq # of last completed WR */
> >>>>> u32 wr_rx_cnt; /* number of WR recv buffers */
> >>>>> unsigned long wr_rx_tstamp; /* jiffies when last buf rx */
> >>>>> + wait_queue_head_t wr_rx_empty_wait; /* wait for RQ empty */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> struct ib_reg_wr wr_reg; /* WR register memory region */
> >>>>> wait_queue_head_t wr_reg_wait; /* wait for wr_reg result */
> >>>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_wr.c b/net/smc/smc_wr.c
> >>>>> index 26f8f240d..bc8793803 100644
> >>>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_wr.c
> >>>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_wr.c
> >>>>> @@ -454,6 +454,7 @@ static inline void smc_wr_rx_process_cqes(struct ib_wc wc[], int num)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> >>>>> link = wc[i].qp->qp_context;
> >>>>> + link->wr_rx_id_compl = wc[i].wr_id;
> >>>>> if (wc[i].status == IB_WC_SUCCESS) {
> >>>>> link->wr_rx_tstamp = jiffies;
> >>>>> smc_wr_rx_demultiplex(&wc[i]);
> >>>>> @@ -465,6 +466,8 @@ static inline void smc_wr_rx_process_cqes(struct ib_wc wc[], int num)
> >>>>> case IB_WC_RNR_RETRY_EXC_ERR:
> >>>>> case IB_WC_WR_FLUSH_ERR:
> >>>>> smcr_link_down_cond_sched(link);
> >>>>> + if (link->wr_rx_id_compl == link->wr_rx_id)
> >>>>> + wake_up(&link->wr_rx_empty_wait);
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> default:
> >>>>> smc_wr_rx_post(link); /* refill WR RX */
> >>>>> @@ -631,6 +634,11 @@ static void smc_wr_init_sge(struct smc_link *lnk)
> >>>>> lnk->wr_reg.access = IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE | IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +void smc_wr_drain_cq(struct smc_link *lnk)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + wait_event(lnk->wr_rx_empty_wait, lnk->wr_rx_id_compl == lnk->wr_rx_id);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> void smc_wr_free_link(struct smc_link *lnk)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> struct ib_device *ibdev;
> >>>>> @@ -889,6 +897,7 @@ int smc_wr_create_link(struct smc_link *lnk)
> >>>>> atomic_set(&lnk->wr_tx_refcnt, 0);
> >>>>> init_waitqueue_head(&lnk->wr_reg_wait);
> >>>>> atomic_set(&lnk->wr_reg_refcnt, 0);
> >>>>> + init_waitqueue_head(&lnk->wr_rx_empty_wait);
> >>>>> return rc;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> dma_unmap:
> >>>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_wr.h b/net/smc/smc_wr.h
> >>>>> index a54e90a11..5ca5086ae 100644
> >>>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_wr.h
> >>>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_wr.h
> >>>>> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ static inline int smc_wr_rx_post(struct smc_link *link)
> >>>>> int smc_wr_create_link(struct smc_link *lnk);
> >>>>> int smc_wr_alloc_link_mem(struct smc_link *lnk);
> >>>>> int smc_wr_alloc_lgr_mem(struct smc_link_group *lgr);
> >>>>> +void smc_wr_drain_cq(struct smc_link *lnk);
> >>>>> void smc_wr_free_link(struct smc_link *lnk);
> >>>>> void smc_wr_free_link_mem(struct smc_link *lnk);
> >>>>> void smc_wr_free_lgr_mem(struct smc_link_group *lgr);
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you @Yacan for the effort to improve our code! And Thank you @Tony
> >>>> for such valuable suggestions and testing!
> >>>> I like the modification of this version. However, this is not a fix
> >>>> patch to upstream, since the patches "[PATCH net-next v2 00/10] optimize
> >>>> the parallelism of SMC-R connections" are still not applied. My
> >>>> sugguestions:
> >>>> - Please talk to the author (D. Wythe <alibuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) of
> >>>> those patches I mentioned above, and ask if he can take your patch as a
> >>>> part of the patch serie
> >>>> - Fix patches should go to net-next
> >>>> - Please send always send your new version separately, rather than as
> >>>> reply to your previous version. That makes people confused.
> >>>
> >>> @Wenjia, Thanks a lot for your suggestions and guidance !
> >>>
> >>> @D. Wythe, Can you include this patch in your series of patches if it is
> >>> convenient?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Yacan
> >>>
> >> One point I was confused, fixes should goto net, sorry!
> >
> > Well, @D. Wythe, please ignore the above emails, sorry!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yacan
> >
> oh no, I didn't mean that. I think I didn't say clearly. What I mean is
> that the patch should go to net as a seperate patch if the patch serie
> from D. Wythe is already applied. But now the patch serie is still not
> applied, so you can still ask D. Wythe to take your patch as a part of
> this serie. (Just a suggestion)
Well, I misunderstood. What I'm not sure about is that the patch serie
from D. Wythe is going to the net-next tree, but mine is going to the net.
Will this be a problem ?
Regards,
Yacan
