Re: [PATCH net -v2] [BUGFIX] bonding: use flush_delayed_work_sync in bond_close
From: Jay Vosburgh <hidden>
Date: 2011-10-22 00:59:16
Also in:
lkml
Jay Vosburgh [off-list ref] wrote:
Américo Wang [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Jay Vosburgh [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Stephen Hemminger [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:01:02 -0700 Jay Vosburgh [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Mitsuo Hayasaka [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
The bond_close() calls cancel_delayed_work() to cancel delayed works. It, however, cannot cancel works that were already queued in workqueue. The bond_open() initializes work->data, and proccess_one_work() refers get_work_cwq(work)->wq->flags. The get_work_cwq() returns NULL when work->data has been initialized. Thus, a panic occurs. This patch uses flush_delayed_work_sync() instead of cancel_delayed_work() in bond_close(). It cancels delayed timer and waits for work to finish execution. So, it can avoid the null pointer dereference due to the parallel executions of proccess_one_work() and initializing proccess of bond_open().I'm setting up to test this. I have a dim recollection that we tried this some years ago, and there was a different deadlock that manifested through the flush path. Perhaps changes since then have removed that problem. -JWon't this deadlock on RTNL. The problem is that: CPU0 CPU1 rtnl_lock bond_close delayed_work mii_work read_lock(bond->lock); read_unlock(bond->lock); rtnl_lock... waiting for CPU0 flush_delayed_work_sync waiting for delayed_work to finish...Yah, that was it. We discussed this a couple of years ago in regards to a similar patch: http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/12/17/3 The short version is that we could rework the rtnl_lock inside the montiors to be conditional and retry on failure (where "retry" means "reschedule the work and try again later," not "spin retrying on rtnl"). That should permit the use of flush or cancel to terminate the work items.Yes? Even if we use rtnl_trylock(), doesn't flush_delayed_work_sync() still queue the pending delayed work and wait for it to be finished?Yes, it does. The original patch wants to use flush instead of cancel to wait for the work to finish, because there's evidently a possibility of getting back into bond_open before the work item executes, and bond_open would reinitialize the work queue and corrupt the queued work item. The original patch series, and recipe for destruction, is here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg176382.html I've been unable to reproduce the work queue panic locally, although it sounds plausible. Mitsuo: can you provide the precise bonding configuration you're using to induce the problem? Driver options, number and type of slaves, etc.quoted
Maybe I am too blind, why do we need rtnl_lock for cancel_delayed_work() inside bond_close()?We don't need RTNL for cancel/flush. However, bond_close is an ndo_stop operation, and is called in the dev_close path, which always occurs under RTNL. The mii / arp monitor work functions separately acquire RTNL if they need to perform various failover related operations. I'm working on a patch that should resolve the mii / arp monitor RTNL problem as I described above (if rtnl_trylock fails, punt and reschedule the work). I need to rearrange the netdev_bonding_change stuff a bit as well, since it acquires RTNL separately. Once these changes are made to mii / arp monitor, then bond_close can call flush instead of cancel, which should eliminate the original problem described at the top.
Just an update: there are three functions that may deadlock if the cancel work calls are changed to flush_sync. There are two rtnl_lock calls in each of the bond_mii_monitor and bond_activebackup_arp_mon functions, and one more in the bond_alb_monitor. Still testing to make sure I haven't missed anything, and I still haven't been able to reproduce Mitsuo's original failure. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com