On 11/08/2016 07:09 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 06:53 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 22:42 -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>>
>>> I've got a virtual machine that has some NFS mounts, and with a newly
>>> compiled
>>> kernel based on v4.9-rc3 I see the following warning/info message:
>>>
>>> [ 42.750181] ===============================
>>> [ 42.750192] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
>>> [ 42.750203] 4.9.0-rc3-00002-g7b6e7de #3 Not tainted
>>> [ 42.750213] -------------------------------
>>> [ 42.750225] net/sunrpc/clnt.c:2773 suspicious rcu_dereference_check()
>>> usage!
>>> [ 42.750235]
>>> [ 42.750235] other info that might help us debug this:
>>> [ 42.750235]
>>> [ 42.750246]
>>> [ 42.750246] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
>>> [ 42.750257] 1 lock held by mount.nfs4/6440:
>>> [ 42.750278] #0:
>>> [ 42.750299] (
>>> [ 42.750319] &(&nn->nfs_client_lock)->rlock
>>> [ 42.750340] ){+.+...}
>>> [ 42.750362] , at:
>>> [ 42.750372] [<ffffffff813012b5>] nfs_get_client+0x105/0x5e0
>>> [ 42.750383]
>>> [ 42.750383] stack backtrace:
>>> [ 42.750394] CPU: 0 PID: 6440 Comm: mount.nfs4 Not tainted
>>> 4.9.0-rc3-00002-g7b6e7de #3
>>> [ 42.750406] Hardware name: Intel Corporation PURLEY/PURLEY, BIOS
>>> PLYDCRB1.MBH.0096.D23.1608240105 08/24/2016
>>> [ 42.750429] ffffc9000092fa68 ffffffff8150730f ffff88014ec8da40
>>> 0000000000000001
>>> [ 42.750452] ffffc9000092fa98 ffffffff810bc3f7 ffff880150b0b228
>>> ffff88015068dbb0
>>> [ 42.750475] ffffc9000092fb38 ffff88014fc99180 ffffc9000092fac0
>>> ffffffff81b243e5
>>> [ 42.750486] Call Trace:
>>> [ 42.750498] [<ffffffff8150730f>] dump_stack+0x67/0x98
>>> [ 42.750511] [<ffffffff810bc3f7>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
>>> [ 42.750524] [<ffffffff81b243e5>]
>>> rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_has_addr+0x115/0x150
>>> [ 42.750536] [<ffffffff813013f4>] nfs_get_client+0x244/0x5e0
>>> [ 42.750549] [<ffffffff813012ac>] ? nfs_get_client+0xfc/0x5e0
>>> [ 42.750561] [<ffffffff813568f8>] nfs4_set_client+0x98/0x130
>>> [ 42.750574] [<ffffffff8135872e>] nfs4_create_server+0x13e/0x390
>>> [ 42.750588] [<ffffffff8134cd0e>] nfs4_remote_mount+0x2e/0x60
>>> [ 42.750600] [<ffffffff811f3a29>] mount_fs+0x39/0x170
>>> [ 42.750614] [<ffffffff81214a0b>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6b/0x150
>>> [ 42.750626] [<ffffffff8134cbec>] ? nfs_do_root_mount+0x3c/0xc0
>>> [ 42.750639] [<ffffffff8134cc36>] nfs_do_root_mount+0x86/0xc0
>>> [ 42.750652] [<ffffffff8134d014>] nfs4_try_mount+0x44/0xc0
>>> [ 42.750664] [<ffffffff81302097>] ? get_nfs_version+0x27/0x90
>>> [ 42.750677] [<ffffffff81310f8c>] nfs_fs_mount+0x4ac/0xd80
>>> [ 42.750689] [<ffffffff810bb938>] ? lockdep_init_map+0x88/0x1f0
>>> [ 42.750701] [<ffffffff81311ac0>] ? nfs_clone_super+0x130/0x130
>>> [ 42.750713] [<ffffffff8130f300>] ? param_set_portnr+0x70/0x70
>>> [ 42.750726] [<ffffffff811f3a29>] mount_fs+0x39/0x170
>>> [ 42.750740] [<ffffffff81214a0b>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6b/0x150
>>> [ 42.750752] [<ffffffff812176f1>] do_mount+0x1f1/0xd10
>>> [ 42.750765] [<ffffffff81217441>] ? copy_mount_options+0xa1/0x140
>>> [ 42.750777] [<ffffffff81218543>] SyS_mount+0x83/0xd0
>>> [ 42.750790] [<ffffffff81002abc>] do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x130
>>> [ 42.750802] [<ffffffff81c479a4>] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
>>>
>>> This rcu_dereference_check() was introduced by the following commit:
>>>
>>> commit 39e5d2df959dd4aea81fa33d765d2a5cc67a0512
>>> Author: Andy Adamson <and...@netapp.com>
>>> Date: Fri Sep 9 09:22:25 2016 -0400
>>>
>>> SUNRPC search xprt switch for sockaddr
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <and...@netapp.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <anna.schuma...@netapp.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Ross
>>
>> Thanks Ross,
Hi Ross,
Can you try this patch and let me know if it helps:
http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=anna/linux-nfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=bb29dd84333a96f309c6d0f88b285b5b78927058
I'm planning on sending it to Linus soon, so it should be in rc5.
Anna
>>
>> ----------------------8<----------------------
>> bool rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_has_addr(struct rpc_clnt *clnt,
>> const struct sockaddr *sap)
>> {
>> struct rpc_xprt_switch *xps;
>> bool ret;
>>
>> xps = rcu_dereference(clnt->cl_xpi.xpi_xpswitch);
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> ret = rpc_xprt_switch_has_addr(xps, sap);
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> return ret;
>> }
>> ----------------------8<----------------------
>>
>> Looks like the simple fix is to just move that rcu_dereference call
>> inside the rcu_read_lock there.
>>
>
> Hmm...that said though, there are some other suspicious accesses
> of xpi_xpswitch. Looks like these are called without the rcu_read_lock
> clearly being held:
>
> rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_add_xprt
> rpc_clnt_xprt_switch_put
>
> ...though it's possible I missed something there.
>
