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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Problem running PTP on latest linux ( #1

Open
ievenbach opened this issue Jul 25, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Problem running PTP on latest linux ( #1

ievenbach opened this issue Jul 25, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@ievenbach
Copy link

Hello,
I have a board based on Sparx5i chip, and am running in "standalone" mode - that is without MESA.
I use latest BSP (bsp-6.6-2024 branch).

I am trying to run ptp4l on it. It succeeds, if I run it once, with single port.
But if I restart it, or try to run with multiple ports, I see an error:

root@medusa:~# ptp4l -2 -i eth0 -m
ptp4l[2719.892]: selected /dev/ptp0 as PTP clock
ptp4l[2719.940]: driver rejected most general HWTSTAMP filter
ptp4l[2719.940]: ioctl SIOCSHWTSTAMP failed: Cannot allocate memory
ptp4l[2719.972]: port 1 (eth0): INITIALIZING to FAULTY on FAULT_DETECTED (FT_UNSPECIFIED)

I tracked it down to sparx5_ptp_add_trap() - it fails in call to sparx5_add_ptp_key so far, but didn't go
much further.
Is there a quick fix by any chance?
@HoratiuVultur
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi,

Sorry for late reply. Apparently I was not notified when you added this comment and I have seen it only now.
Are you still seeing the issue with the branch bsp-6.6-2024. I just give it a try and it seems to be working.
Just let me know if you still see it.

(Now I have changed my settings and I will be notified for all activities).

Thanks,
/Horatiu

ivecera referenced this issue in ivecera/mchp-bsp-linux Feb 7, 2025
@kuba-moo
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
a487c2c 
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.

The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:

	struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
	printf("A: %llu", stats->a);

lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.

Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:

    if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
                        value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))

Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:

    if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))

Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.

In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:

         0       4       8       12      16
32b:     [nlattr][ u32  ]
64b:     [  pad ][nlattr][     u64      ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32  ]
uint(64) [nlattr][     u64      ]

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
ivecera referenced this issue in ivecera/mchp-bsp-linux Feb 7, 2025
dpll: fix possible deadlock during netlink dump operation
cf46245 
Recently, I've been hitting following deadlock warning during dpll pin
dump:

[52804.637962] ======================================================
[52804.638536] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[52804.639111] 6.8.0-rc2jiri+ #1 Not tainted
[52804.639529] ------------------------------------------------------
[52804.640104] python3/2984 is trying to acquire lock:
[52804.640581] ffff88810e642678 (nlk_cb_mutex-GENERIC){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: netlink_dump+0xb3/0x780
[52804.641417]
               but task is already holding lock:
[52804.642010] ffffffff83bde4c8 (dpll_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dpll_lock_dumpit+0x13/0x20
[52804.642747]
               which lock already depends on the new lock.

[52804.643551]
               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[52804.644259]
               -> #1 (dpll_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[52804.644836]        lock_acquire+0x174/0x3e0
[52804.645271]        __mutex_lock+0x119/0x1150
[52804.645723]        dpll_lock_dumpit+0x13/0x20
[52804.646169]        genl_start+0x266/0x320
[52804.646578]        __netlink_dump_start+0x321/0x450
[52804.647056]        genl_family_rcv_msg_dumpit+0x155/0x1e0
[52804.647575]        genl_rcv_msg+0x1ed/0x3b0
[52804.648001]        netlink_rcv_skb+0xdc/0x210
[52804.648440]        genl_rcv+0x24/0x40
[52804.648831]        netlink_unicast+0x2f1/0x490
[52804.649290]        netlink_sendmsg+0x36d/0x660
[52804.649742]        __sock_sendmsg+0x73/0xc0
[52804.650165]        __sys_sendto+0x184/0x210
[52804.650597]        __x64_sys_sendto+0x72/0x80
[52804.651045]        do_syscall_64+0x6f/0x140
[52804.651474]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0x4e
[52804.652001]
               -> #0 (nlk_cb_mutex-GENERIC){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[52804.652650]        check_prev_add+0x1ae/0x1280
[52804.653107]        __lock_acquire+0x1ed3/0x29a0
[52804.653559]        lock_acquire+0x174/0x3e0
[52804.653984]        __mutex_lock+0x119/0x1150
[52804.654423]        netlink_dump+0xb3/0x780
[52804.654845]        __netlink_dump_start+0x389/0x450
[52804.655321]        genl_family_rcv_msg_dumpit+0x155/0x1e0
[52804.655842]        genl_rcv_msg+0x1ed/0x3b0
[52804.656272]        netlink_rcv_skb+0xdc/0x210
[52804.656721]        genl_rcv+0x24/0x40
[52804.657119]        netlink_unicast+0x2f1/0x490
[52804.657570]        netlink_sendmsg+0x36d/0x660
[52804.658022]        __sock_sendmsg+0x73/0xc0
[52804.658450]        __sys_sendto+0x184/0x210
[52804.658877]        __x64_sys_sendto+0x72/0x80
[52804.659322]        do_syscall_64+0x6f/0x140
[52804.659752]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0x4e
[52804.660281]
               other info that might help us debug this:

[52804.661077]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[52804.661671]        CPU0                    CPU1
[52804.662129]        ----                    ----
[52804.662577]   lock(dpll_lock);
[52804.662924]                                lock(nlk_cb_mutex-GENERIC);
[52804.663538]                                lock(dpll_lock);
[52804.664073]   lock(nlk_cb_mutex-GENERIC);
[52804.664490]

The issue as follows: __netlink_dump_start() calls control->start(cb)
with nlk->cb_mutex held. In control->start(cb) the dpll_lock is taken.
Then nlk->cb_mutex is released and taken again in netlink_dump(), while
dpll_lock still being held. That leads to ABBA deadlock when another
CPU races with the same operation.

Fix this by moving dpll_lock taking into dumpit() callback which ensures
correct lock taking order.

Fixes: 9d71b54b65b1 ("dpll: netlink: Add DPLL framework base functions")
Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@HoratiuVultur @ievenbach