Re: [syzbot ci] Re: ipv6: Protect multiple routes insertion by table lock.
flat view
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com>
Date: 2026-10-27 06:06:14
Also in:
syzbot
Subsystem:
networking [general], networking [ipv4/ipv6], the rest · Maintainers:
"David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, David Ahern, Ido Schimmel, Linus Torvalds
On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 10:18:08 -0700, syzbot ci wrote:
syzbot ci has tested the following series [v1] ipv6: Protect multiple routes insertion by table lock. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261023191517.607834-1-kuniyu@google.com (local) * [PATCH v1 net] ipv6: Protect multiple routes insertion by table lock. and found the following issue: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in rt6_multipath_rebalance Full report is available here: https://ci.syzbot.org/series/7d878fa2-f84a-4468-85e2-c2a5e263aeff *** WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in rt6_multipath_rebalance tree: net URL: https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git base: 7076f684d5132e6a6145e1da2fa74771ecd052e5 arch: amd64 compiler: Debian clang version 22.1.8 (1~deb13u4), Debian LLD 22.1.8 config: https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/bbb3053f-f23f-4fe3-a9e9-85396428119d/config IPv6: RTM_NEWROUTE with no NLM_F_CREATE or NLM_F_REPLACE IPv6: NLM_F_CREATE should be set when creating new route ============================= WARNING: suspicious RCU usage syzkaller #0 Not tainted ----------------------------- ./include/net/addrconf.h:351 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage! other info that might help us debug this: rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 locks held by syz.2.3386/18922: 1, last CPU#0: #0: ffff888177df3430 (&tb->tb6_lock){+...}-{3:3}, at: inet6_rtm_newroute+0x3dc/0x1ab0 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 18922 Comm: syz.2.3386 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0xe8/0x150 lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x140/0x1d0 rt6_multipath_rebalance+0xf11/0x1080 fib6_del+0xada/0x15a0
Similar to 8e5f1bb81274 ("ipv6: Narrow down RCU critical section
in inet6_rtm_newroute()."), I had to wrap rt6_multipath_rebalance()
with RCU.
Will squash this:
---8<---diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
index 0dc6ebee6e56..f7c69c9df411 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c@@ -1228,9 +1228,7 @@ static int fib6_add_rt2node(struct fib6_node *fn, struct fib6_info *rt, fib6_nsiblings++; } BUG_ON(fib6_nsiblings != rt->fib6_nsiblings); - rcu_read_lock(); rt6_multipath_rebalance(temp_sibling); - rcu_read_unlock(); } /*
@@ -1274,9 +1272,7 @@ static int fib6_add_rt2node(struct fib6_node *fn, struct fib6_info *rt, sibling->fib6_nsiblings - 1); WRITE_ONCE(rt->fib6_nsiblings, 0); list_del_rcu(&rt->fib6_siblings); - rcu_read_lock(); rt6_multipath_rebalance(next_sibling); - rcu_read_unlock(); return err; } }
diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index 5926ddbd4349..9618e7b635e9 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c@@ -4875,8 +4875,10 @@ void rt6_multipath_rebalance(struct fib6_info *rt) if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!first)) return; + rcu_read_lock(); total = rt6_multipath_total_weight(first); rt6_multipath_upper_bound_set(first, total); + rcu_read_unlock(); } static int fib6_ifup(struct fib6_info *rt, void *p_arg) ---8<---
Thanks