Searched +hist:0 +hist:ac1759a (Results 1 - 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /linux-master/include/linux/ | ||
| H A D | seq_file.h | diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> |
| /linux-master/fs/ | ||
| H A D | seq_file.c | diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> diff ad25f5cb Sat May 21 01:45:28 MDT 2022 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> rxrpc: Fix locking issue There's a locking issue with the per-netns list of calls in rxrpc. The pieces of code that add and remove a call from the list use write_lock() and the calls procfile uses read_lock() to access it. However, the timer callback function may trigger a removal by trying to queue a call for processing and finding that it's already queued - at which point it has a spare refcount that it has to do something with. Unfortunately, if it puts the call and this reduces the refcount to 0, the call will be removed from the list. Unfortunately, since the _bh variants of the locking functions aren't used, this can deadlock. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 5.18.0-rc3-build4+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/2/25 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff888107ac4038 (&rxnet->call_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: rxrpc_put_call+0x103/0x14b {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: ... Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rxnet->call_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&rxnet->call_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/25: #0: ffff8881008ffdb0 ((&call->timer)){+.-.}-{0:0}, at: call_timer_fn+0x5/0x23d Changes ======= ver #2) - Changed to using list_next_rcu() rather than rcu_dereference() directly. Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> |
Completed in 195 milliseconds