On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 13:56 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Commit 00590fdd5be0 introduced RCU locking in list type and in
> doing so introduced a memory allocation in list_set_add, which
> results in the following splat:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/page_alloc.c:2759
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 9664, name: ipset
> CPU: 18 PID: 9664 Comm: ipset Tainted: G O 3.12.47-clouder3 #1
> Hardware name: Supermicro X10DRi/X10DRi, BIOS 1.1 04/14/2015
> 0000000000000002 ffff881fd14273c8 ffffffff8163d891 ffff881fcb4264b0
> ffff881fcb4260c0 ffff881fd14273e8 ffffffff810ba5bf ffff881fd1427558
> 0000000000000000 ffff881fd1427568 ffffffff81142b33 ffff881f00000000
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8163d891>] dump_stack+0x58/0x7f
> [<ffffffff810ba5bf>] __might_sleep+0xdf/0x110
> [<ffffffff81142b33>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x243/0xc20
> [<ffffffff81181c6e>] alloc_pages_current+0xbe/0x170
> [<ffffffff81188315>] new_slab+0x295/0x340
> [<ffffffff81189a40>] __slab_alloc+0x2c0/0x5a0
> [<ffffffff8164000c>] ? __schedule+0x2dc/0x760
> [<ffffffff8118a71b>] __kmalloc+0x11b/0x230
> [<ffffffffa02bd0ac>] ? ip_set_get_byname+0xec/0x100 [ip_set]
> [<ffffffffa02d23fb>] list_set_uadd+0x16b/0x314 [ip_set_list_set]
> [<ffffffff81642148>] ? _raw_write_unlock_bh+0x28/0x30
> [<ffffffffa02d1cfc>] list_set_uadt+0x21c/0x320 [ip_set_list_set]
> [<ffffffffa02d2290>] ? list_set_create+0x1a0/0x1a0 [ip_set_list_set]
> [<ffffffffa02be242>] call_ad+0x82/0x200 [ip_set]
> [<ffffffffa02bb171>] ? find_set_type+0x51/0xa0 [ip_set]
> [<ffffffff8133f275>] ? nla_parse+0xf5/0x130
> [<ffffffffa02be8ae>] ip_set_uadd+0x20e/0x2d0 [ip_set]
> [<ffffffffa02be013>] ? ip_set_create+0x2a3/0x450 [ip_set]
> [<ffffffffa02be6a0>] ? ip_set_udel+0x2e0/0x2e0 [ip_set]
> [<ffffffff815b316e>] nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x31e/0x330
> [<ffffffff815b2e91>] ? nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x41/0x330
> [<ffffffff815b2e50>] ? nfnl_lock+0x30/0x30
> [<ffffffff815ae179>] netlink_rcv_skb+0xa9/0xd0
> [<ffffffff815b2d45>] nfnetlink_rcv+0x15/0x20
> [<ffffffff815ade5f>] netlink_unicast+0x10f/0x190
> [<ffffffff815aedb0>] netlink_sendmsg+0x2c0/0x660
> [<ffffffff81567f00>] sock_sendmsg+0x90/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81565b03>] ? move_addr_to_user+0xa3/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81568552>] ? ___sys_recvmsg+0x182/0x300
> [<ffffffff81568064>] SYSC_sendto+0x134/0x180
> [<ffffffff811c4e01>] ? mntput+0x21/0x30
> [<ffffffff81572d2f>] ? __kfree_skb+0x3f/0xa0
> [<ffffffff815680be>] SyS_sendto+0xe/0x10
> [<ffffffff816434b2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> The call chain leading to this is as follow:
> call_ad -> list_set_uadt -> list_set_uadd -> kzalloc(, GFP_KERNEL).
> And since GFP_KERNEL allows initiating direct reclaim thus
> potentially sleeping in the allocation path, this leads to the
> aforementioned splat.
>
> To fix it change the allocation type to GFP_ATOMIC, to
> correctly reflect that it is occuring in an atomic context.
>
> Fixes: 00590fdd5be0 ("netfilter: ipset: Introduce RCU locking in list type")
>
> Acked-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes since V1:
> * Added acked-by
> * Fixed patch header
>
> net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_list_set.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_list_set.c b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_list_set.c
> index a1fe537..5a30ce6 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_list_set.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_list_set.c
> @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ list_set_uadd(struct ip_set *set, void *value, const struct ip_set_ext *ext,
> ip_set_timeout_expired(ext_timeout(n, set))))
> n = NULL;
>
> - e = kzalloc(set->dsize, GFP_KERNEL);
> + e = kzalloc(set->dsize, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!e)
> return -ENOMEM;
> e->id = d->id;
This patch looks very bogus to me.
Could we fix the root cause please ?
Root cause is that somewhere in this controlling path, an erroneous
rcu_read_lock() is used, while it is very probably not needed, as
controlling path should be protected by a mutex, which definitely is
sane, because it allows us to perform GFP_KERNEL allocations and being
preempted.
Why are we using rcu_read_lock() in list_set_list() ?
This looks as yet another bit of 'let us throw
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs' all over the places because it
feels so good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
