Thread (23 messages) 23 messages, 5 authors, 2025-02-26

Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/9] net: devmem: make dmabuf unbinding scheduled work

From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: 2025-02-25 13:08:25
Also in: kvm, linux-doc, linux-kselftest, lkml, virtualization

On 2/22/25 8:15 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
The TX path may release the dmabuf in a context where we cannot wait.
This happens when the user unbinds a TX dmabuf while there are still
references to its netmems in the TX path. In that case, the netmems will
be put_netmem'd from a context where we can't unmap the dmabuf,
resulting in a BUG like seen by Stan:

[    1.548495] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c:1255
[    1.548741] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 149, name: ncdevmem
[    1.548926] preempt_count: 201, expected: 0
[    1.549026] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
[    1.549197]
[    1.549237] =============================
[    1.549331] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[    1.549425] 6.13.0-rc3-00770-gbc9ef9606dc9-dirty #15 Tainted: G        W
[    1.549609] -----------------------------
[    1.549704] ncdevmem/149 is trying to lock:
[    1.549801] ffff8880066701c0 (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.550051] other info that might help us debug this:
[    1.550167] context-{5:5}
[    1.550229] 3 locks held by ncdevmem/149:
[    1.550322]  #0: ffff888005730208 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#11){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: sock_close+0x40/0xf0
[    1.550530]  #1: ffff88800b148f98 (sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: tcp_close+0x19/0x80
[    1.550731]  #2: ffff88800b148f18 (slock-AF_INET6){+.-.}-{3:3}, at: __tcp_close+0x185/0x4b0
[    1.550921] stack backtrace:
[    1.550990] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 149 Comm: ncdevmem Tainted: G        W          6.13.0-rc3-00770-gbc9ef9606dc9-dirty #15
[    1.551233] Tainted: [W]=WARN
[    1.551304] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Arch Linux 1.16.3-1-1 04/01/2014
[    1.551518] Call Trace:
[    1.551584]  <TASK>
[    1.551636]  dump_stack_lvl+0x86/0xc0
[    1.551723]  __lock_acquire+0xb0f/0xc30
[    1.551814]  ? dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.551941]  lock_acquire+0xf1/0x2a0
[    1.552026]  ? dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.552152]  ? dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.552281]  ? dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.552408]  __ww_mutex_lock+0x121/0x1060
[    1.552503]  ? dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.552648]  ww_mutex_lock+0x3d/0xa0
[    1.552733]  dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked+0x4b/0x90
[    1.552857]  __net_devmem_dmabuf_binding_free+0x56/0xb0
[    1.552979]  skb_release_data+0x120/0x1f0
[    1.553074]  __kfree_skb+0x29/0xa0
[    1.553156]  tcp_write_queue_purge+0x41/0x310
[    1.553259]  tcp_v4_destroy_sock+0x127/0x320
[    1.553363]  ? __tcp_close+0x169/0x4b0
[    1.553452]  inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x53/0x130
[    1.553560]  __tcp_close+0x421/0x4b0
[    1.553646]  tcp_close+0x24/0x80
[    1.553724]  inet_release+0x5d/0x90
[    1.553806]  sock_close+0x4a/0xf0
[    1.553886]  __fput+0x9c/0x2b0
[    1.553960]  task_work_run+0x89/0xc0
[    1.554046]  do_exit+0x27f/0x980
[    1.554125]  do_group_exit+0xa4/0xb0
[    1.554211]  __x64_sys_exit_group+0x17/0x20
[    1.554309]  x64_sys_call+0x21a0/0x21a0
[    1.554400]  do_syscall_64+0xec/0x1d0
[    1.554487]  ? exc_page_fault+0x8a/0xf0
[    1.554585]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
[    1.554703] RIP: 0033:0x7f2f8a27abcd

Resolve this by making __net_devmem_dmabuf_binding_free schedule_work'd.

Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <redacted>
Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
I'm sorry, I should have noted this in the previous revisions. I think
this should be squashed in the previous patch: it will not make it
significantly bigger, and could avoid weird problems on bisections.

Thanks!

Paolo
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help