selftests/bpf: merge most of test_btf into test_progs #33
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Master branch: 8081ede patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
|
Master branch: 2f7de98 patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
c8a607d to
2d2de27
Compare
|
Master branch: e3b9626 patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
2d2de27 to
b7de48f
Compare
|
Master branch: d66423f patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
b7de48f to
6823d4b
Compare
|
Master branch: 90a1ded patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
6823d4b to
bf36ea4
Compare
|
Master branch: 18841da patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
bf36ea4 to
6445459
Compare
|
Master branch: 2bab48c patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
6445459 to
0d35dc0
Compare
|
Master branch: 2bab48c patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
0d35dc0 to
cbdad77
Compare
…xercised regularly. Pretty-printing tests were left alone in test_btf because they are very slow and were not even executed by default with test_btf. Also, they seem to break when moved under test_progs and I didn't want to spend more time on figuring out why they broke, given we don't want to execute them all the time anyway. All the test_btf tests that were moved are modeled as proper sub-tests in test_progs framework for ease of debugging and reporting. No functional or behavioral changes were intended, I tried to preserve original behavior as close to the original as possible. `test_progs -v` will activate "always_log" flag to emit BTF validation log. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 6124 ++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_btf.c | 7442 ++---------------- 2 files changed, 6796 insertions(+), 6770 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
|
Master branch: d72714c patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/[email protected]/ applied successfully |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200694
branch
from
cbdad77 to
d80670a
Compare
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?series=200694 expired. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2020
When multiple adapters are present in the system, pci hot-removing second adapter leads to the following warning as both the adapters registered thermal zone device with same thermal zone name/type. Therefore, use unique thermal zone name during thermal zone device initialization. Also mark thermal zone dev NULL once unregistered. [ 414.370143] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 414.370944] sysfs group 'power' not found for kobject 'hwmon0' [ 414.371747] WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 2661 at fs/sysfs/group.c:281 sysfs_remove_group+0x76/0x80 [ 414.382550] CPU: 9 PID: 2661 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.8.0-rc6+ #33 [ 414.383593] Hardware name: Supermicro X10SRA-F/X10SRA-F, BIOS 2.0a 06/23/2016 [ 414.384669] RIP: 0010:sysfs_remove_group+0x76/0x80 [ 414.385738] Code: 48 89 df 5b 5d 41 5c e9 d8 b5 ff ff 48 89 df e8 60 b0 ff ff eb cb 49 8b 14 24 48 8b 75 00 48 c7 c7 90 ae 13 bb e8 6a 27 d0 ff <0f> 0b 5b 5d 41 5c c3 0f 1f 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 f6 74 31 41 54 [ 414.388404] RSP: 0018:ffffa22bc080fcb0 EFLAGS: 00010286 [ 414.389638] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 414.390829] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffff8ee2de3e9510 RDI: ffff8ee2de3e9510 [ 414.392064] RBP: ffffffffbaef2ee0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 [ 414.393224] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 000000002b30006c R12: ffff8ee260720008 [ 414.394388] R13: ffff8ee25e0a40e8 R14: ffffa22bc080ff08 R15: ffff8ee2c3be5020 [ 414.395661] FS: 00007fd2a7171740(0000) GS:ffff8ee2de200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 414.396825] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 414.398011] CR2: 00007f178ffe5020 CR3: 000000084c5cc003 CR4: 00000000003606e0 [ 414.399172] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 414.400352] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 414.401473] Call Trace: [ 414.402685] device_del+0x89/0x400 [ 414.403819] device_unregister+0x16/0x60 [ 414.405024] hwmon_device_unregister+0x44/0xa0 [ 414.406112] thermal_remove_hwmon_sysfs+0x196/0x200 [ 414.407256] thermal_zone_device_unregister+0x1b5/0x1f0 [ 414.408415] cxgb4_thermal_remove+0x3c/0x4f [cxgb4] [ 414.409668] remove_one+0x212/0x290 [cxgb4] [ 414.410875] pci_device_remove+0x36/0xb0 [ 414.412004] device_release_driver_internal+0xe2/0x1c0 [ 414.413276] pci_stop_bus_device+0x64/0x90 [ 414.414433] pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device_locked+0x16/0x30 [ 414.415609] remove_store+0x75/0x90 [ 414.416790] kernfs_fop_write+0x114/0x1b0 [ 414.417930] vfs_write+0xcf/0x210 [ 414.419059] ksys_write+0xa7/0xe0 [ 414.420120] do_syscall_64+0x4c/0xa0 [ 414.421278] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 414.422335] RIP: 0033:0x7fd2a686afd0 [ 414.423396] Code: Bad RIP value. [ 414.424549] RSP: 002b:00007fffc1446148 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001 [ 414.425638] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fd2a686afd0 [ 414.426830] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 00007fd2a7196000 RDI: 0000000000000001 [ 414.427927] RBP: 00007fd2a7196000 R08: 000000000000000a R09: 00007fd2a7171740 [ 414.428923] R10: 00007fd2a7171740 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fd2a6b43400 [ 414.430082] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 0000000000000000 [ 414.431027] irq event stamp: 76300 [ 414.435678] ---[ end trace 13865acb4d5ab00f ]--- Fixes: b187191 ("cxgb4: Add thermal zone support") Signed-off-by: Potnuri Bharat Teja <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2021
This mostly reverts commit 99bca61 ("MIPS: pci-legacy: use generic pci_enable_resources"). Fixes regressions such as: ata_piix 0000:00:0a.1: can't enable device: BAR 0 [io 0x01f0-0x01f7] not claimed ata_piix: probe of 0000:00:0a.1 failed with error -22 The only changes from the strict revert are to fix checkpatch errors: ERROR: spaces required around that '=' (ctx:VxV) #33: FILE: arch/mips/pci/pci-legacy.c:252: + for (idx=0; idx < PCI_NUM_RESOURCES; idx++) { ^ ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition #67: FILE: arch/mips/pci/pci-legacy.c:284: + if ((err = pcibios_enable_resources(dev, mask)) < 0) Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ilya Lipnitskiy <[email protected]> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2021
Do not schedule hw full reset if the device is not fully initialized (e.g if the channel has not been configured yet). This patch fixes the kernel crash reported below [ 44.440266] mt7921e 0000:01:00.0: chip reset failed [ 44.527575] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffc02f3e0000 [ 44.535771] Mem abort info: [ 44.538646] ESR = 0x96000006 [ 44.541792] EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits [ 44.547268] SET = 0, FnV = 0 [ 44.550413] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 [ 44.553648] Data abort info: [ 44.556613] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000006 [ 44.560563] CM = 0, WnR = 0 [ 44.563619] swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp=0000000000955000 [ 44.570530] [ffffffc02f3e0000] pgd=100000003ffff003, p4d=100000003ffff003, pud=100000003ffff003, pmd=0000000000000000 [ 44.581489] Internal error: Oops: 96000006 [#1] SMP [ 44.606406] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 5.13.0-rc1-espressobin-12875-g6dc7f82ebc26 #33 [ 44.617264] Hardware name: Globalscale Marvell ESPRESSOBin Board (DT) [ 44.623905] pstate: 600000c5 (nZCv daIF -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--) [ 44.630100] pc : __queue_work+0x1f0/0x500 [ 44.634249] lr : __queue_work+0x1e8/0x500 [ 44.638384] sp : ffffffc010003d70 [ 44.641798] x29: ffffffc010003d70 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: ffffff8003989200 [ 44.649166] x26: ffffffc010c08510 x25: 0000000000000002 x24: ffffffc010ad90b0 [ 44.656533] x23: ffffffc010c08508 x22: 0000000000000012 x21: 0000000000000000 [ 44.663899] x20: ffffff8006385238 x19: ffffffc02f3e0000 x18: 00000000000003c9 [ 44.671266] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 000009b1a8a3bf90 [ 44.678632] x14: 0098968000000000 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000325 [ 44.685998] x11: ffffff803fda1928 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : ffffffc010003e98 [ 44.693365] x8 : 0000000000000032 x7 : fff8000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000035 [ 44.700732] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : ffffffc010adf700 [ 44.708098] x2 : ffffff8006385238 x1 : 000000007fffffff x0 : 0000000000000000 [ 44.715465] Call trace: [ 44.717982] __queue_work+0x1f0/0x500 [ 44.721760] delayed_work_timer_fn+0x18/0x20 [ 44.726167] call_timer_fn+0x2c/0x178 [ 44.729947] run_timer_softirq+0x488/0x5c8 [ 44.734172] _stext+0x11c/0x378 [ 44.737411] irq_exit+0x100/0x108 [ 44.740830] __handle_domain_irq+0x60/0xb0 [ 44.745059] gic_handle_irq+0x70/0x2b4 [ 44.748929] el1_irq+0xb8/0x13c [ 44.752167] arch_cpu_idle+0x14/0x30 [ 44.755858] default_idle_call+0x38/0x168 [ 44.759994] do_idle+0x1fc/0x210 [ 44.763325] cpu_startup_entry+0x20/0x58 [ 44.767372] rest_init+0xb8/0xc8 [ 44.770703] arch_call_rest_init+0xc/0x14 [ 44.774841] start_kernel+0x408/0x424 [ 44.778623] Code: aa1403e0 97fff54f aa0003f5 b5fff500 (f9400275) [ 44.784907] ---[ end trace be73c3142d8c36a9 ]--- [ 44.789668] Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt Fixes: 0c1ce98 ("mt76: mt7921: add wifi reset support") Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2022
The kmemleak_*_phys() apis do not check the address for lowmem's min boundary, while the caller may pass an address below lowmem, which will trigger an oops: # echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ff5fffffffe00000 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: CPU: 2 PID: 134 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1-next-20220407 #33 Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) epc : scan_block+0x74/0x15c ra : scan_block+0x72/0x15c epc : ffffffff801e5806 ra : ffffffff801e5804 sp : ff200000104abc30 gp : ffffffff815cd4e8 tp : ff60000004cfa340 t0 : 0000000000000200 t1 : 00aaaaaac23954cc t2 : 00000000000003ff s0 : ff200000104abc90 s1 : ffffffff81b0ff28 a0 : 0000000000000000 a1 : ff5fffffffe01000 a2 : ffffffff81b0ff28 a3 : 0000000000000002 a4 : 0000000000000001 a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : ff200000104abd7c a7 : 0000000000000005 s2 : ff5fffffffe00ff9 s3 : ffffffff815cd998 s4 : ffffffff815d0e90 s5 : ffffffff81b0ff28 s6 : 0000000000000020 s7 : ffffffff815d0eb0 s8 : ffffffffffffffff s9 : ff5fffffffe00000 s10: ff5fffffffe01000 s11: 0000000000000022 t3 : 00ffffffaa17db4c t4 : 000000000000000f t5 : 0000000000000001 t6 : 0000000000000000 status: 0000000000000100 badaddr: ff5fffffffe00000 cause: 000000000000000d scan_gray_list+0x12e/0x1a6 kmemleak_scan+0x2aa/0x57e kmemleak_write+0x32a/0x40c full_proxy_write+0x56/0x82 vfs_write+0xa6/0x2a6 ksys_write+0x6c/0xe2 sys_write+0x22/0x2a ret_from_syscall+0x0/0x2 The callers may not quite know the actual address they pass(e.g. from devicetree). So the kmemleak_*_phys() apis should guarantee the address they finally use is in lowmem range, so check the address for lowmem's min boundary. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Patrick Wang <[email protected]> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2024
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
shunghsiyu
pushed a commit
to shunghsiyu/bpf
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2024
[ Upstream commit e28acc9 ] Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might show up in the IPv6 code path. 6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb kernel-patches#33 Tainted: G E N ----------------------------- net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519: #0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290 kernel-patches#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90 stack backtrace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious mr_table_dump ipmr_rtm_dumproute rtnl_dump_all rtnl_dumpit netlink_dump __netlink_dump_start rtnetlink_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb netlink_unicast netlink_sendmsg This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested by Eric. To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument. The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it will avoid this false positive. This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls this function as well. Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2025
Some of the platforms may connect the INT pin via inversion logic effectively make the triggering to be active-low. Remove explicit trigger flag to respect the settings from firmware. Without this change even idling chip produces spurious interrupts and kernel disables the line in the result: irq 33: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option) CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 125 Comm: irq/33-i2c-INT3 Not tainted 6.12.0-00236-g8b874ed11dae kernel-patches#64 Hardware name: Intel Corp. QUARK/Galileo, BIOS 0x01000900 01/01/2014 ... handlers: [<86e86bea>] irq_default_primary_handler threaded [<d153e44a>] cy8c95x0_irq_handler [pinctrl_cy8c95x0] Disabling IRQ kernel-patches#33 Fixes: e6cbbe4 ("pinctrl: Add Cypress cy8c95x0 support") Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: selftests/bpf: merge most of test_btf into test_progs
version: 1
url: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?series=200694