| Message ID | 20201015162606.9377-1-ap420073@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] net: core: use list_del_init() instead of list_del() in netdev_run_todo() | expand |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:26:06 +0000 Taehee Yoo wrote: > dev->unlink_list is reused unless dev is deleted. > So, list_del() should not be used. > Due to using list_del(), dev->unlink_list can't be reused so that > dev->nested_level update logic doesn't work. > In order to fix this bug, list_del_init() should be used instead > of list_del(). Applied, thanks!
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c index 4906b44af850..010de57488ce 100644 --- a/net/core/dev.c +++ b/net/core/dev.c @@ -10134,7 +10134,7 @@ void netdev_run_todo(void) struct net_device *dev = list_first_entry(&unlink_list, struct net_device, unlink_list); - list_del(&dev->unlink_list); + list_del_init(&dev->unlink_list); dev->nested_level = dev->lower_level - 1; } #endif
dev->unlink_list is reused unless dev is deleted. So, list_del() should not be used. Due to using list_del(), dev->unlink_list can't be reused so that dev->nested_level update logic doesn't work. In order to fix this bug, list_del_init() should be used instead of list_del(). Test commands: ip link add bond0 type bond ip link add bond1 type bond ip link set bond0 master bond1 ip link set bond0 nomaster ip link set bond1 master bond0 ip link set bond1 nomaster Splat looks like: [ 255.750458][ T1030] ============================================ [ 255.751967][ T1030] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 255.753435][ T1030] 5.9.0-rc8+ #772 Not tainted [ 255.754553][ T1030] -------------------------------------------- [ 255.756047][ T1030] ip/1030 is trying to acquire lock: [ 255.757304][ T1030] ffff88811782a280 (&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150 [ 255.760056][ T1030] [ 255.760056][ T1030] but task is already holding lock: [ 255.761862][ T1030] ffff88811130a280 (&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: bond_enslave+0x3d4d/0x43e0 [bonding] [ 255.764581][ T1030] [ 255.764581][ T1030] other info that might help us debug this: [ 255.766645][ T1030] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 255.766645][ T1030] [ 255.768566][ T1030] CPU0 [ 255.769415][ T1030] ---- [ 255.770259][ T1030] lock(&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1); [ 255.771629][ T1030] lock(&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1); [ 255.772994][ T1030] [ 255.772994][ T1030] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 255.772994][ T1030] [ 255.775091][ T1030] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 255.775091][ T1030] [ 255.777182][ T1030] 2 locks held by ip/1030: [ 255.778299][ T1030] #0: ffffffffb1f63250 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x2e4/0x8b0 [ 255.780600][ T1030] #1: ffff88811130a280 (&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: bond_enslave+0x3d4d/0x43e0 [bonding] [ 255.783411][ T1030] [ 255.783411][ T1030] stack backtrace: [ 255.784874][ T1030] CPU: 7 PID: 1030 Comm: ip Not tainted 5.9.0-rc8+ #772 [ 255.786595][ T1030] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014 [ 255.789030][ T1030] Call Trace: [ 255.789850][ T1030] dump_stack+0x99/0xd0 [ 255.790882][ T1030] __lock_acquire.cold.71+0x166/0x3cc [ 255.792285][ T1030] ? register_lock_class+0x1a30/0x1a30 [ 255.793619][ T1030] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x91/0xc0 [ 255.794963][ T1030] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xa0/0xa0 [ 255.796246][ T1030] lock_acquire+0x1b8/0x850 [ 255.797332][ T1030] ? dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150 [ 255.798624][ T1030] ? bond_enslave+0x3d4d/0x43e0 [bonding] [ 255.800039][ T1030] ? check_flags+0x50/0x50 [ 255.801143][ T1030] ? lock_contended+0xd80/0xd80 [ 255.802341][ T1030] _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x2e/0x70 [ 255.803592][ T1030] ? dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150 [ 255.804897][ T1030] dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150 [ 255.806168][ T1030] bond_enslave+0x3d58/0x43e0 [bonding] [ 255.807542][ T1030] ? __lock_acquire+0xe53/0x51b0 [ 255.808824][ T1030] ? bond_update_slave_arr+0xdc0/0xdc0 [bonding] [ 255.810451][ T1030] ? check_chain_key+0x236/0x5e0 [ 255.811742][ T1030] ? mutex_is_locked+0x13/0x50 [ 255.812910][ T1030] ? rtnl_is_locked+0x11/0x20 [ 255.814061][ T1030] ? netdev_master_upper_dev_get+0xf/0x120 [ 255.815553][ T1030] do_setlink+0x94c/0x3040 [ ... ] Reported-by: syzbot+4a0f7bc34e3997a6c7df@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Fixes: 1fc70edb7d7b ("net: core: add nested_level variable in net_device") Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com> --- net/core/dev.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)