RCU problems in fib_table_insert

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:25:25PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I got the following warning at boot with a 2.6.34-rc2ish git kernel
> with RCU debugging and preemption enabled.
> 
> It seems the problem is that not all callers of fib_find_node
> call it with rcu_read_lock() to stabilize access to the fib. 
> 
> I tried to fix it, but especially for fib_table_insert() that's rather 
> tricky: it does a lot of memory allocations and also route flushing and 
> other blocking operations while assuming the original fa is RCU stable.
> 
> I first tried to move some allocations to the beginning and keep
> preemption disabled in the rest, but it's difficult with all of them.
> No patch because of that.
> 
> Does the fa need an additional reference count for this problem?
> Or perhaps some optimistic locking?
> 
> -Andi
> 
> 
> ==================================================
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> /home/lsrc/git/linux-2.6/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c:964 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> 
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> 2 locks held by ip/4521:
>  #0:  (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816466af>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x1f/0x40
>  #1:  ((inetaddr_chain).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff8107cde7>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x47/0x90

Looks to me like a false positive: If I rememeber correctly, it is OK
to invoke the fib-trie functions either inside an RCU read-side critical
section or with RTNL held.  However, I must defer to the networking guys.
For one thing, things might have changed since I last looked at this code.

But if I am correct, the following patch should work.  If I am wrong,
this patch will instead incorrectly enforce my misconceptions.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

net: suppress lockdep-RCU false positive in FIB trie.

Allow fib_find_node() to be called either under rcu_read_lock()
protection or with RTNL held.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 fib_trie.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:37:03 -0700

> net: suppress lockdep-RCU false positive in FIB trie.
> 
> Allow fib_find_node() to be called either under rcu_read_lock()
> protection or with RTNL held.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks guys, I applied this copy and added Eric's signoff
since the two patches were essentially identical :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 06:01:40PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:37:03 -0700
> 
> > net: suppress lockdep-RCU false positive in FIB trie.
> > 
> > Allow fib_find_node() to be called either under rcu_read_lock()
> > protection or with RTNL held.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Thanks guys, I applied this copy and added Eric's signoff
> since the two patches were essentially identical :-)

Great minds thinking alike and all that.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html