Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Enable WangXun {NG,TXG}BE netdriver for desktop #33

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 28, 2023

Conversation

opsiff
Copy link
Member

@opsiff opsiff commented Sep 27, 2023

Enable WangXun {NG,TXG}BE netdriver on x86 desktop

Vender ID
#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_WANGXUN 0x8088

Product ID
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL_W 0x0100
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A2 0x0101
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A2S 0x0102
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A4 0x0103
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A4S 0x0104
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL2 0x0105
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL2S 0x0106
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL4 0x0107
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL4S 0x0108
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860LC 0x0109
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A1 0x010a
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A1L 0x010b
#define TXGBE_DEV_ID_SP1000 0x1001
#define TXGBE_DEV_ID_WX1820 0x2001

Enable WangXun {NG,TXG}BE netdriver on x86 desktop

Vender ID
#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_WANGXUN			0x8088

Product ID
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL_W		0x0100
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A2			0x0101
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A2S		0x0102
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A4			0x0103
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A4S		0x0104
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL2		0x0105
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL2S		0x0106
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL4		0x0107
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860AL4S		0x0108
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860LC			0x0109
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A1			0x010a
#define NGBE_DEV_ID_EM_WX1860A1L		0x010b
#define TXGBE_DEV_ID_SP1000                     0x1001
#define TXGBE_DEV_ID_WX1820                     0x2001
@deepin-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: xzl01

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@Zeno-sole
Copy link
Contributor

/check obs

@matrix-wsk matrix-wsk merged commit 6f1d27b into deepin-community:kernel-mainline Sep 28, 2023
@opsiff opsiff deleted the patch-1 branch September 28, 2023 05:34
matrix-wsk pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2023
[ Upstream commit 29a7e00 ]

When employed within a sleepable program not under RCU protection, the
use of 'bpf_task_under_cgroup()' may trigger a warning in the kernel log,
particularly when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU is enabled:

  [ 1259.662357] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
  [ 1259.662358] 6.5.0+ #33 Not tainted
  [ 1259.662360] -----------------------------
  [ 1259.662361] include/linux/cgroup.h:423 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!

Other info that might help to debug this:

  [ 1259.662366] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
  [ 1259.662368] 1 lock held by trace/72954:
  [ 1259.662369]  #0: ffffffffb5e3eda0 (rcu_read_lock_trace){....}-{0:0}, at: __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable+0x0/0xb0

Stack backtrace:

  [ 1259.662385] CPU: 50 PID: 72954 Comm: trace Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.5.0+ #33
  [ 1259.662391] Call Trace:
  [ 1259.662393]  <TASK>
  [ 1259.662395]  dump_stack_lvl+0x6e/0x90
  [ 1259.662401]  dump_stack+0x10/0x20
  [ 1259.662404]  lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x163/0x1b0
  [ 1259.662412]  task_css_set.part.0+0x23/0x30
  [ 1259.662417]  bpf_task_under_cgroup+0xe7/0xf0
  [ 1259.662422]  bpf_prog_7fffba481a3bcf88_lsm_run+0x5c/0x93
  [ 1259.662431]  bpf_trampoline_6442505574+0x60/0x1000
  [ 1259.662439]  bpf_lsm_bpf+0x5/0x20
  [ 1259.662443]  ? security_bpf+0x32/0x50
  [ 1259.662452]  __sys_bpf+0xe6/0xdd0
  [ 1259.662463]  __x64_sys_bpf+0x1a/0x30
  [ 1259.662467]  do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
  [ 1259.662472]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
  [ 1259.662479] RIP: 0033:0x7f487baf8e29
  [...]
  [ 1259.662504]  </TASK>

This issue can be reproduced by executing a straightforward program, as
demonstrated below:

SEC("lsm.s/bpf")
int BPF_PROG(lsm_run, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
{
        struct cgroup *cgrp = NULL;
        struct task_struct *task;
        int ret = 0;

        if (cmd != BPF_LINK_CREATE)
                return 0;

        // The cgroup2 should be mounted first
        cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(1);
        if (!cgrp)
                goto out;
        task = bpf_get_current_task_btf();
        if (bpf_task_under_cgroup(task, cgrp))
                ret = -1;
        bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);

out:
        return ret;
}

After running the program, if you subsequently execute another BPF program,
you will encounter the warning.

It's worth noting that task_under_cgroup_hierarchy() is also utilized by
bpf_current_task_under_cgroup(). However, bpf_current_task_under_cgroup()
doesn't exhibit this issue because it cannot be used in sleepable BPF
programs.

Fixes: b5ad4cd ("bpf: Add bpf_task_under_cgroup() kfunc")
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
Cc: Feng Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc: KP Singh <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
matrix-wsk pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2023
[ Upstream commit 29a7e00 ]

When employed within a sleepable program not under RCU protection, the
use of 'bpf_task_under_cgroup()' may trigger a warning in the kernel log,
particularly when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU is enabled:

  [ 1259.662357] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
  [ 1259.662358] 6.5.0+ #33 Not tainted
  [ 1259.662360] -----------------------------
  [ 1259.662361] include/linux/cgroup.h:423 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!

Other info that might help to debug this:

  [ 1259.662366] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
  [ 1259.662368] 1 lock held by trace/72954:
  [ 1259.662369]  #0: ffffffffb5e3eda0 (rcu_read_lock_trace){....}-{0:0}, at: __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable+0x0/0xb0

Stack backtrace:

  [ 1259.662385] CPU: 50 PID: 72954 Comm: trace Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.5.0+ #33
  [ 1259.662391] Call Trace:
  [ 1259.662393]  <TASK>
  [ 1259.662395]  dump_stack_lvl+0x6e/0x90
  [ 1259.662401]  dump_stack+0x10/0x20
  [ 1259.662404]  lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x163/0x1b0
  [ 1259.662412]  task_css_set.part.0+0x23/0x30
  [ 1259.662417]  bpf_task_under_cgroup+0xe7/0xf0
  [ 1259.662422]  bpf_prog_7fffba481a3bcf88_lsm_run+0x5c/0x93
  [ 1259.662431]  bpf_trampoline_6442505574+0x60/0x1000
  [ 1259.662439]  bpf_lsm_bpf+0x5/0x20
  [ 1259.662443]  ? security_bpf+0x32/0x50
  [ 1259.662452]  __sys_bpf+0xe6/0xdd0
  [ 1259.662463]  __x64_sys_bpf+0x1a/0x30
  [ 1259.662467]  do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
  [ 1259.662472]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
  [ 1259.662479] RIP: 0033:0x7f487baf8e29
  [...]
  [ 1259.662504]  </TASK>

This issue can be reproduced by executing a straightforward program, as
demonstrated below:

SEC("lsm.s/bpf")
int BPF_PROG(lsm_run, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
{
        struct cgroup *cgrp = NULL;
        struct task_struct *task;
        int ret = 0;

        if (cmd != BPF_LINK_CREATE)
                return 0;

        // The cgroup2 should be mounted first
        cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(1);
        if (!cgrp)
                goto out;
        task = bpf_get_current_task_btf();
        if (bpf_task_under_cgroup(task, cgrp))
                ret = -1;
        bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);

out:
        return ret;
}

After running the program, if you subsequently execute another BPF program,
you will encounter the warning.

It's worth noting that task_under_cgroup_hierarchy() is also utilized by
bpf_current_task_under_cgroup(). However, bpf_current_task_under_cgroup()
doesn't exhibit this issue because it cannot be used in sleepable BPF
programs.

Fixes: b5ad4cd ("bpf: Add bpf_task_under_cgroup() kfunc")
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
Cc: Feng Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc: KP Singh <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Avenger-285714 pushed a commit to Avenger-285714/DeepinKernel that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2024
[ Upstream commit 14bb1e8 ]

Recently, I frequently hit the following test failure:

  [root@arch-fb-vm1 bpf]# ./test_progs -n 33/1
  test_lookup_update:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  [...]
  test_lookup_update:PASS:sync_rcu 0 nsec
  test_lookup_update:FAIL:map1_leak inner_map1 leaked!
  deepin-community#33/1    btf_map_in_map/lookup_update:FAIL
  deepin-community#33      btf_map_in_map:FAIL

In the test, after map is closed and then after two rcu grace periods,
it is assumed that map_id is not available to user space.

But the above assumption cannot be guaranteed. After zero or one
or two rcu grace periods in different siturations, the actual
freeing-map-work is put into a workqueue. Later on, when the work
is dequeued, the map will be actually freed.
See bpf_map_put() in kernel/bpf/syscall.c.

By using workqueue, there is no ganrantee that map will be actually
freed after a couple of rcu grace periods. This patch removed
such map leak detection and then the test can pass consistently.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Avenger-285714 pushed a commit to Avenger-285714/DeepinKernel that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2024
[ Upstream commit 14bb1e8 ]

Recently, I frequently hit the following test failure:

  [root@arch-fb-vm1 bpf]# ./test_progs -n 33/1
  test_lookup_update:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
  [...]
  test_lookup_update:PASS:sync_rcu 0 nsec
  test_lookup_update:FAIL:map1_leak inner_map1 leaked!
  deepin-community#33/1    btf_map_in_map/lookup_update:FAIL
  deepin-community#33      btf_map_in_map:FAIL

In the test, after map is closed and then after two rcu grace periods,
it is assumed that map_id is not available to user space.

But the above assumption cannot be guaranteed. After zero or one
or two rcu grace periods in different siturations, the actual
freeing-map-work is put into a workqueue. Later on, when the work
is dequeued, the map will be actually freed.
See bpf_map_put() in kernel/bpf/syscall.c.

By using workqueue, there is no ganrantee that map will be actually
freed after a couple of rcu grace periods. This patch removed
such map leak detection and then the test can pass consistently.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Avenger-285714 pushed a commit to Avenger-285714/DeepinKernel that referenced this pull request Jul 13, 2024
[ Upstream commit af9a873 ]

During the stress testing of the jffs2 file system,the following
abnormal printouts were found:
[ 2430.649000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0069696969696948
[ 2430.649622] Mem abort info:
[ 2430.649829]   ESR = 0x96000004
[ 2430.650115]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[ 2430.650564]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[ 2430.650795]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[ 2430.651032]   FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[ 2430.651446] Data abort info:
[ 2430.651683]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004
[ 2430.652001]   CM = 0, WnR = 0
[ 2430.652558] [0069696969696948] address between user and kernel address ranges
[ 2430.653265] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[ 2430.654512] CPU: 2 PID: 20919 Comm: cat Not tainted 5.15.25-g512f31242bf6 deepin-community#33
[ 2430.655008] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
[ 2430.655517] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[ 2430.656142] pc : kfree+0x78/0x348
[ 2430.656630] lr : jffs2_free_inode+0x24/0x48
[ 2430.657051] sp : ffff800009eebd10
[ 2430.657355] x29: ffff800009eebd10 x28: 0000000000000001 x27: 0000000000000000
[ 2430.658327] x26: ffff000038f09d80 x25: 0080000000000000 x24: ffff800009d38000
[ 2430.658919] x23: 5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a x22: ffff000038f09d80 x21: ffff8000084f0d14
[ 2430.659434] x20: ffff0000bf9a6ac0 x19: 0169696969696940 x18: 0000000000000000
[ 2430.659969] x17: ffff8000b6506000 x16: ffff800009eec000 x15: 0000000000004000
[ 2430.660637] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 00000001000820a1 x12: 00000000000d1b19
[ 2430.661345] x11: 0004000800000000 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffff8000084f0d14
[ 2430.662025] x8 : ffff0000bf9a6b40 x7 : ffff0000bf9a6b48 x6 : 0000000003470302
[ 2430.662695] x5 : ffff00002e41dcc0 x4 : ffff0000bf9aa3b0 x3 : 0000000003470342
[ 2430.663486] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff8000084f0d14 x0 : fffffc0000000000
[ 2430.664217] Call trace:
[ 2430.664528]  kfree+0x78/0x348
[ 2430.664855]  jffs2_free_inode+0x24/0x48
[ 2430.665233]  i_callback+0x24/0x50
[ 2430.665528]  rcu_do_batch+0x1ac/0x448
[ 2430.665892]  rcu_core+0x28c/0x3c8
[ 2430.666151]  rcu_core_si+0x18/0x28
[ 2430.666473]  __do_softirq+0x138/0x3cc
[ 2430.666781]  irq_exit+0xf0/0x110
[ 2430.667065]  handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0x98
[ 2430.667447]  gic_handle_irq+0xac/0xe8
[ 2430.667739]  call_on_irq_stack+0x28/0x54
The parameter passed to kfree was 5a5a5a5a, which corresponds to the target field of
the jffs_inode_info structure. It was found that all variables in the jffs_inode_info
structure were 5a5a5a5a, except for the first member sem. It is suspected that these
variables are not initialized because they were set to 5a5a5a5a during memory testing,
which is meant to detect uninitialized memory.The sem variable is initialized in the
function jffs2_i_init_once, while other members are initialized in
the function jffs2_init_inode_info.

The function jffs2_init_inode_info is called after iget_locked,
but in the iget_locked function, the destroy_inode process is triggered,
which releases the inode and consequently, the target member of the inode
is not initialized.In concurrent high pressure scenarios, iget_locked
may enter the destroy_inode branch as described in the code.

Since the destroy_inode functionality of jffs2 only releases the target,
the fix method is to set target to NULL in jffs2_i_init_once.

Signed-off-by: Wang Yong <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Lu Zhongjun <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Yang Tao <[email protected]>
Cc: Xu Xin <[email protected]>
Cc: Yang Yang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Avenger-285714 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 13, 2024
[ Upstream commit af9a873 ]

During the stress testing of the jffs2 file system,the following
abnormal printouts were found:
[ 2430.649000] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0069696969696948
[ 2430.649622] Mem abort info:
[ 2430.649829]   ESR = 0x96000004
[ 2430.650115]   EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
[ 2430.650564]   SET = 0, FnV = 0
[ 2430.650795]   EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
[ 2430.651032]   FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault
[ 2430.651446] Data abort info:
[ 2430.651683]   ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004
[ 2430.652001]   CM = 0, WnR = 0
[ 2430.652558] [0069696969696948] address between user and kernel address ranges
[ 2430.653265] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[ 2430.654512] CPU: 2 PID: 20919 Comm: cat Not tainted 5.15.25-g512f31242bf6 #33
[ 2430.655008] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
[ 2430.655517] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
[ 2430.656142] pc : kfree+0x78/0x348
[ 2430.656630] lr : jffs2_free_inode+0x24/0x48
[ 2430.657051] sp : ffff800009eebd10
[ 2430.657355] x29: ffff800009eebd10 x28: 0000000000000001 x27: 0000000000000000
[ 2430.658327] x26: ffff000038f09d80 x25: 0080000000000000 x24: ffff800009d38000
[ 2430.658919] x23: 5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a x22: ffff000038f09d80 x21: ffff8000084f0d14
[ 2430.659434] x20: ffff0000bf9a6ac0 x19: 0169696969696940 x18: 0000000000000000
[ 2430.659969] x17: ffff8000b6506000 x16: ffff800009eec000 x15: 0000000000004000
[ 2430.660637] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 00000001000820a1 x12: 00000000000d1b19
[ 2430.661345] x11: 0004000800000000 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffff8000084f0d14
[ 2430.662025] x8 : ffff0000bf9a6b40 x7 : ffff0000bf9a6b48 x6 : 0000000003470302
[ 2430.662695] x5 : ffff00002e41dcc0 x4 : ffff0000bf9aa3b0 x3 : 0000000003470342
[ 2430.663486] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff8000084f0d14 x0 : fffffc0000000000
[ 2430.664217] Call trace:
[ 2430.664528]  kfree+0x78/0x348
[ 2430.664855]  jffs2_free_inode+0x24/0x48
[ 2430.665233]  i_callback+0x24/0x50
[ 2430.665528]  rcu_do_batch+0x1ac/0x448
[ 2430.665892]  rcu_core+0x28c/0x3c8
[ 2430.666151]  rcu_core_si+0x18/0x28
[ 2430.666473]  __do_softirq+0x138/0x3cc
[ 2430.666781]  irq_exit+0xf0/0x110
[ 2430.667065]  handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0x98
[ 2430.667447]  gic_handle_irq+0xac/0xe8
[ 2430.667739]  call_on_irq_stack+0x28/0x54
The parameter passed to kfree was 5a5a5a5a, which corresponds to the target field of
the jffs_inode_info structure. It was found that all variables in the jffs_inode_info
structure were 5a5a5a5a, except for the first member sem. It is suspected that these
variables are not initialized because they were set to 5a5a5a5a during memory testing,
which is meant to detect uninitialized memory.The sem variable is initialized in the
function jffs2_i_init_once, while other members are initialized in
the function jffs2_init_inode_info.

The function jffs2_init_inode_info is called after iget_locked,
but in the iget_locked function, the destroy_inode process is triggered,
which releases the inode and consequently, the target member of the inode
is not initialized.In concurrent high pressure scenarios, iget_locked
may enter the destroy_inode branch as described in the code.

Since the destroy_inode functionality of jffs2 only releases the target,
the fix method is to set target to NULL in jffs2_i_init_once.

Signed-off-by: Wang Yong <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Lu Zhongjun <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Yang Tao <[email protected]>
Cc: Xu Xin <[email protected]>
Cc: Yang Yang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
opsiff pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2024
[ Upstream commit e28acc9c1ccfcb24c08e020828f69d0a915b06ae ]

Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the
following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the
following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might
show up in the IPv6 code path.

	6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb #33 Tainted: G            E    N
	-----------------------------
	net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!

	rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
		   2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519:
		    #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290
		    #1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90

	stack backtrace:
		    lockdep_rcu_suspicious
		    mr_table_dump
		    ipmr_rtm_dumproute
		    rtnl_dump_all
		    rtnl_dumpit
		    netlink_dump
		    __netlink_dump_start
		    rtnetlink_rcv_msg
		    netlink_rcv_skb
		    netlink_unicast
		    netlink_sendmsg

This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it
is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested
by Eric.

To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use
list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument.

The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are
missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it
will avoid this false positive.

This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls
this function as well.

Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 26a8303dd4d2a2ee4bf9ef987a409a6278a2b294)
opsiff pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 9, 2024
[ Upstream commit e28acc9c1ccfcb24c08e020828f69d0a915b06ae ]

Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the
following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the
following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might
show up in the IPv6 code path.

	6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb #33 Tainted: G            E    N
	-----------------------------
	net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!

	rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
		   2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519:
		    #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290
		    #1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90

	stack backtrace:
		    lockdep_rcu_suspicious
		    mr_table_dump
		    ipmr_rtm_dumproute
		    rtnl_dump_all
		    rtnl_dumpit
		    netlink_dump
		    __netlink_dump_start
		    rtnetlink_rcv_msg
		    netlink_rcv_skb
		    netlink_unicast
		    netlink_sendmsg

This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it
is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested
by Eric.

To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use
list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument.

The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are
missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it
will avoid this false positive.

This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls
this function as well.

Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 561063997ae333fab9bbf29a302305af4a16b64d)
opsiff pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 9, 2024
[ Upstream commit e28acc9c1ccfcb24c08e020828f69d0a915b06ae ]

Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the
following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the
following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might
show up in the IPv6 code path.

	6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb #33 Tainted: G            E    N
	-----------------------------
	net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!

	rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
		   2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519:
		    #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290
		    #1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90

	stack backtrace:
		    lockdep_rcu_suspicious
		    mr_table_dump
		    ipmr_rtm_dumproute
		    rtnl_dump_all
		    rtnl_dumpit
		    netlink_dump
		    __netlink_dump_start
		    rtnetlink_rcv_msg
		    netlink_rcv_skb
		    netlink_unicast
		    netlink_sendmsg

This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it
is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested
by Eric.

To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use
list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument.

The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are
missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it
will avoid this false positive.

This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls
this function as well.

Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 561063997ae333fab9bbf29a302305af4a16b64d)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants