From: Lijun Pan <hidden> Date: 2021-04-14 08:10:55
There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
This could generate deadlock. For example,
the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
So, we check the napi state bit to make sure that if napi is already
disabled, we exit the call early enough to avoid spinning infinitely.
Fixes: bea3348eef27 ("[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects.")
Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <redacted>
---
v2: justify that this patch makes napi_disable more robust.
net/core/dev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
From: Yunsheng Lin <hidden> Date: 2021-04-14 08:46:04
On 2021/4/14 16:08, Lijun Pan wrote:
quoted hunk
There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
This could generate deadlock. For example,
the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
So, we check the napi state bit to make sure that if napi is already
disabled, we exit the call early enough to avoid spinning infinitely.
Fixes: bea3348eef27 ("[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects.")
Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <redacted>
---
v2: justify that this patch makes napi_disable more robust.
net/core/dev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
@@ -6830,6 +6830,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netif_napi_add);voidnapi_disable(structnapi_struct*n){might_sleep();++/* make sure napi_disable() runs only once,+*Whennapiisdisabled,thestatebitsarelike:+*NAPI_STATE_SCHED(setbypreviousnapi_disable)+*NAPI_STATE_NPSVC(setbypreviousnapi_disable)+*NAPI_STATE_DISABLE(clearedbypreviousnapi_disable)+*NAPI_STATE_PREFER_BUSY_POLL(clearedbypreviousnapi_complete_done)+*NAPI_STATE_MISSED(clearedbypreviousnapi_complete_done)+*/++if(napi_disable_pending(n))+return;+if(test_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED,&n->state)&&+test_bit(NAPI_STATE_NPSVC,&n->state)&&+!test_bit(NAPI_STATE_MISSED,&n->state)&&+!test_bit(NAPI_STATE_PREFER_BUSY_POLL,&n->state))+return;
The NAPI_STATE_DISABLE is cleared at the end of napi_disable(),
and if a buggy driver/hw triggers a interrupt and driver calls
napi_schedule_irqoff(), which may set NAPI_STATE_MISSED
if NAPI_STATE_SCHED is set(in napi_schedule_prep()), the above
checking does not seem to handle it?
+
set_bit(NAPI_STATE_DISABLE, &n->state);
while (test_and_set_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED, &n->state))
From: Lijun Pan <hidden> Date: 2021-04-14 17:31:49
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:45 AM Yunsheng Lin [off-list ref] wrote:
On 2021/4/14 16:08, Lijun Pan wrote:
quoted
There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
This could generate deadlock. For example,
the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
So, we check the napi state bit to make sure that if napi is already
disabled, we exit the call early enough to avoid spinning infinitely.
Fixes: bea3348eef27 ("[NET]: Make NAPI polling independent of struct net_device objects.")
Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan <redacted>
---
v2: justify that this patch makes napi_disable more robust.
net/core/dev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
@@ -6830,6 +6830,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netif_napi_add);voidnapi_disable(structnapi_struct*n){might_sleep();++/* make sure napi_disable() runs only once,+*Whennapiisdisabled,thestatebitsarelike:+*NAPI_STATE_SCHED(setbypreviousnapi_disable)+*NAPI_STATE_NPSVC(setbypreviousnapi_disable)+*NAPI_STATE_DISABLE(clearedbypreviousnapi_disable)+*NAPI_STATE_PREFER_BUSY_POLL(clearedbypreviousnapi_complete_done)+*NAPI_STATE_MISSED(clearedbypreviousnapi_complete_done)+*/++if(napi_disable_pending(n))+return;+if(test_bit(NAPI_STATE_SCHED,&n->state)&&+test_bit(NAPI_STATE_NPSVC,&n->state)&&+!test_bit(NAPI_STATE_MISSED,&n->state)&&+!test_bit(NAPI_STATE_PREFER_BUSY_POLL,&n->state))+return;
The NAPI_STATE_DISABLE is cleared at the end of napi_disable(),
and if a buggy driver/hw triggers a interrupt and driver calls
napi_schedule_irqoff(), which may set NAPI_STATE_MISSED
if NAPI_STATE_SCHED is set(in napi_schedule_prep()), the above
checking does not seem to handle it?
What I described in the commit message is the napi_disable() being
called from the same instance, same cpu. e.g.,
funcA {
napi_disable();
...
funcB{
if (blah)
napi_disable();
...
}
funcC;
}
The scenario you mentioned above seems to have napi already enabled
and scheduled, such that napi_schedule_prep() would set NAPI_STATE_MISSED.
The two scenarios are different per my understanding. Is there a way
that your scenario will finally call into my scenario?
Let me know if I understand you correctly.
Maybe testing NAPI_STATE_MISSED bit is not needed
because this bit is not that reliable.
Lijun
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: 2021-04-14 23:21:14
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:08:45 -0500 Lijun Pan wrote:
There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
This could generate deadlock. For example,
the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
So, we check the napi state bit to make sure that if napi is already
disabled, we exit the call early enough to avoid spinning infinitely.
You've already been told by Eric & Dave to fix the driver instead.
Your check is _not_ correct - SCHED && NPSVC && !MISSED && !BUSY_POLL
can well arise without disabling the NAPI.
But regardless, a driver bug should be relatively easy to identify with
task getting stuck in napi_disable(). We don't provide "protection"
for taking spin locks or ref counts twice either. Unless you can show
a strong use case please stop posting new versions of this patch.
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden> Date: 2021-04-15 06:46:36
On 4/15/21 1:21 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:08:45 -0500 Lijun Pan wrote:
quoted
There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
This could generate deadlock. For example,
the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
So, we check the napi state bit to make sure that if napi is already
disabled, we exit the call early enough to avoid spinning infinitely.
You've already been told by Eric & Dave to fix the driver instead.
Your check is _not_ correct - SCHED && NPSVC && !MISSED && !BUSY_POLL
can well arise without disabling the NAPI.
But regardless, a driver bug should be relatively easy to identify with
task getting stuck in napi_disable(). We don't provide "protection"
for taking spin locks or ref counts twice either. Unless you can show
a strong use case please stop posting new versions of this patch.
+222
I notice this v2 does not even mention which driver has the issue.
I suspect an out-of-tree driver.
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden> Date: 2021-04-15 06:47:57
On 4/14/21 10:08 AM, Lijun Pan wrote:
There are chances that napi_disable can be called twice by NIC driver.
This could generate deadlock. For example,
the first napi_disable will spin until NAPI_STATE_SCHED is cleared
by napi_complete_done, then set it again.
When napi_disable is called the second time, it will loop infinitely
because no dev->poll will be running to clear NAPI_STATE_SCHED.
Though it is driver writer's responsibility to make sure it being
called only once, making napi_disable more robust does not hurt, not
to say it can prevent a buggy driver from crashing a system.
This is hard to digest. A buggy driver has plenty of ways to crash the system.
If you need help to fix the buggy driver, please ask for help.