Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 160
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 30 11月, 2013 3 次提交
    • V
      e1000: fix possible reset_task running after adapter down · 74a1b1ea
      由 Vladimir Davydov 提交于 
      On e1000_down(), we should ensure every asynchronous work is canceled
before proceeding. Since the watchdog_task can schedule other works
apart from itself, it should be stopped first, but currently it is
stopped after the reset_task. This can result in the following race
leading to the reset_task running after the module unload:

e1000_down_and_stop():			e1000_watchdog():
----------------------			-----------------

cancel_work_sync(reset_task)
					schedule_work(reset_task)
cancel_delayed_work_sync(watchdog_task)

The patch moves cancel_delayed_work_sync(watchdog_task) at the beginning
of e1000_down_and_stop() thus ensuring the race is impossible.

Cc: Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@intel.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Signed-off-by: NVladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
Tested-by: NAaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
      74a1b1ea
    • V
      e1000: fix lockdep warning in e1000_reset_task · b2f963bf
      由 Vladimir Davydov 提交于 
      The patch fixes the following lockdep warning, which is 100%
reproducible on network restart:

======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.12.0+ #47 Tainted: GF
-------------------------------------------------------
kworker/1:1/27 is trying to acquire lock:
 ((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work)){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8108a5b0>] flush_work+0x0/0x70

but task is already holding lock:
 (&adapter->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa0177c0a>] e1000_reset_task+0x4a/0xa0 [e1000]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&adapter->mutex){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff810bdb5d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x120
       [<ffffffff816b8cbc>] mutex_lock_nested+0x4c/0x390
       [<ffffffffa017233d>] e1000_watchdog+0x7d/0x5b0 [e1000]
       [<ffffffff8108b972>] process_one_work+0x1d2/0x510
       [<ffffffff8108ca80>] worker_thread+0x120/0x3a0
       [<ffffffff81092c1e>] kthread+0xee/0x110
       [<ffffffff816c3d7c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0

-> #0 ((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work)){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff810bd9c0>] __lock_acquire+0x1710/0x1810
       [<ffffffff810bdb5d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x120
       [<ffffffff8108a5eb>] flush_work+0x3b/0x70
       [<ffffffff8108b5d8>] __cancel_work_timer+0x98/0x140
       [<ffffffff8108b693>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x13/0x20
       [<ffffffffa0170cec>] e1000_down_and_stop+0x3c/0x60 [e1000]
       [<ffffffffa01775b1>] e1000_down+0x131/0x220 [e1000]
       [<ffffffffa0177c12>] e1000_reset_task+0x52/0xa0 [e1000]
       [<ffffffff8108b972>] process_one_work+0x1d2/0x510
       [<ffffffff8108ca80>] worker_thread+0x120/0x3a0
       [<ffffffff81092c1e>] kthread+0xee/0x110
       [<ffffffff816c3d7c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0

other info that might help us debug this:

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&adapter->mutex);
                               lock((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work));
                               lock(&adapter->mutex);
  lock((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work));

 *** DEADLOCK ***

3 locks held by kworker/1:1/27:
 #0:  (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff8108b906>] process_one_work+0x166/0x510
 #1:  ((&adapter->reset_task)){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8108b906>] process_one_work+0x166/0x510
 #2:  (&adapter->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa0177c0a>] e1000_reset_task+0x4a/0xa0 [e1000]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 27 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: GF            3.12.0+ #47
Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product Name/P5B-VM SE, BIOS 0501    05/31/2007
Workqueue: events e1000_reset_task [e1000]
 ffffffff820f6000 ffff88007b9dba98 ffffffff816b54a2 0000000000000002
 ffffffff820f5e50 ffff88007b9dbae8 ffffffff810ba936 ffff88007b9dbac8
 ffff88007b9dbb48 ffff88007b9d8f00 ffff88007b9d8780 ffff88007b9d8f00
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff816b54a2>] dump_stack+0x49/0x5f
 [<ffffffff810ba936>] print_circular_bug+0x216/0x310
 [<ffffffff810bd9c0>] __lock_acquire+0x1710/0x1810
 [<ffffffff8108a5b0>] ? __flush_work+0x250/0x250
 [<ffffffff810bdb5d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x120
 [<ffffffff8108a5b0>] ? __flush_work+0x250/0x250
 [<ffffffff8108a5eb>] flush_work+0x3b/0x70
 [<ffffffff8108a5b0>] ? __flush_work+0x250/0x250
 [<ffffffff8108b5d8>] __cancel_work_timer+0x98/0x140
 [<ffffffff8108b693>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x13/0x20
 [<ffffffffa0170cec>] e1000_down_and_stop+0x3c/0x60 [e1000]
 [<ffffffffa01775b1>] e1000_down+0x131/0x220 [e1000]
 [<ffffffffa0177c12>] e1000_reset_task+0x52/0xa0 [e1000]
 [<ffffffff8108b972>] process_one_work+0x1d2/0x510
 [<ffffffff8108b906>] ? process_one_work+0x166/0x510
 [<ffffffff8108ca80>] worker_thread+0x120/0x3a0
 [<ffffffff8108c960>] ? manage_workers+0x2c0/0x2c0
 [<ffffffff81092c1e>] kthread+0xee/0x110
 [<ffffffff81092b30>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
 [<ffffffff816c3d7c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
 [<ffffffff81092b30>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70

== The issue background ==

The problem occurs, because e1000_down(), which is called under
adapter->mutex by e1000_reset_task(), tries to synchronously cancel
e1000 auxiliary works (reset_task, watchdog_task, phy_info_task,
fifo_stall_task), which take adapter->mutex in their handlers. So the
question is what does adapter->mutex protect there?

The adapter->mutex was introduced by commit 0ef4ee ("e1000: convert to
private mutex from rtnl") as a replacement for rtnl_lock() taken in the
asynchronous handlers. It targeted on fixing a similar lockdep warning
issued when e1000_down() was called under rtnl_lock(), and it fixed it,
but unfortunately it introduced the lockdep warning described above.
Anyway, that said the source of this bug is that the asynchronous works
were made to take rtnl_lock() some time ago, so let's look deeper and
find why it was added there.

The rtnl_lock() was added to asynchronous handlers by commit 338c15
("e1000: fix occasional panic on unload") in order to prevent
asynchronous handlers from execution after the module is unloaded
(e1000_down() is called) as it follows from the comment to the commit:

> Net drivers in general have an issue where timers fired
> by mod_timer or work threads with schedule_work are running
> outside of the rtnl_lock.
>
> With no other lock protection these routines are vulnerable
> to races with driver unload or reset paths.
>
> The longer term solution to this might be a redesign with
> safer locks being taken in the driver to guarantee no
> reentrance, but for now a safe and effective fix is
> to take the rtnl_lock in these routines.

I'm not sure if this locking scheme fixed the problem or just made it
unlikely, although I incline to the latter. Anyway, this was long time
ago when e1000 auxiliary works were implemented as timers scheduling
real work handlers in their routines. The e1000_down() function only
canceled the timers, but left the real handlers running if they were
running, which could result in work execution after module unload.
Today, the e1000 driver uses sane delayed works instead of the pair
timer+work to implement its delayed asynchronous handlers, and the
e1000_down() synchronously cancels all the works so that the problem
that commit 338c15 tried to cope with disappeared, and we don't need any
locks in the handlers any more. Moreover, any locking there can
potentially result in a deadlock.

So, this patch reverts commits 0ef4ee and 338c15.

Fixes: 0ef4eedc ("e1000: convert to private mutex from rtnl")
Fixes: 338c15e4 ("e1000: fix occasional panic on unload")
Cc: Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@intel.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Signed-off-by: NVladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
Tested-by: NAaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
      b2f963bf
    • Y
      e1000: prevent oops when adapter is being closed and reset simultaneously · 6a7d64e3
      由 yzhu1 提交于 
      This change is based on a similar change made to e1000e support in
commit bb9e44d0 ("e1000e: prevent oops when adapter is being closed
and reset simultaneously").  The same issue has also been observed
on the older e1000 cards.

Here, we have increased the RESET_COUNT value to 50 because there are too
many accesses to e1000 nic on stress tests to e1000 nic, it is not enough
to set RESET_COUT 25. Experimentation has shown that it is enough to set
RESET_COUNT 50.
Signed-off-by: Nyzhu1 <yanjun.zhu@windriver.com>
Tested-by: NAaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
      6a7d64e3
  3. 01 11月, 2013 1 次提交
  5. 22 9月, 2013 1 次提交
  7. 20 4月, 2013 3 次提交
  9. 15 3月, 2013 1 次提交
  11. 16 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  13. 09 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  15. 09 1月, 2013 1 次提交
  17. 08 12月, 2012 1 次提交
  19. 04 12月, 2012 1 次提交
    • B
      net/intel: remove __dev* attributes · 9f9a12f8
      由 Bill Pemberton 提交于 
      CONFIG_HOTPLUG is going away as an option.  As result the __dev*
markings will be going away.

Remove use of __devinit, __devexit_p, __devinitdata, __devinitconst,
and __devexit.
Signed-off-by: NBill Pemberton <wfp5p@virginia.edu>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com>
Cc: Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@intel.com>
Cc: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>
Cc: Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@intel.com>
Cc: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>
Cc: Alex Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
Cc: John Ronciak <john.ronciak@intel.com>
Cc: Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@intel.com>
Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Signed-off-by: NGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
      9f9a12f8
  21. 19 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  23. 16 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  25. 08 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  27. 21 8月, 2012 1 次提交
  29. 11 7月, 2012 1 次提交
  31. 20 6月, 2012 1 次提交
  33. 02 6月, 2012 1 次提交
  35. 18 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  37. 17 5月, 2012 2 次提交
  39. 04 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  41. 01 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  43. 04 4月, 2012 1 次提交
  45. 28 3月, 2012 2 次提交
  47. 20 3月, 2012 1 次提交
  49. 24 2月, 2012 3 次提交
  51. 09 2月, 2012 1 次提交
  53. 07 2月, 2012 1 次提交
  55. 01 2月, 2012 1 次提交
  57. 06 1月, 2012 3 次提交
  59. 20 12月, 2011 1 次提交