Commit 9c29a2f5 authored by David Ahern's avatar David Ahern Committed by David S. Miller
Browse files

neighbor: Fix locking order for gc_list changes

Lock checker noted an inverted lock order between neigh_change_state
(neighbor lock then table lock) and neigh_periodic_work (table lock and
then neighbor lock) resulting in:

[  121.057652] ======================================================
[  121.058740] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[  121.059861] 4.20.0-rc6+ #43 Not tainted
[  121.060546] ------------------------------------------------------
[  121.061630] kworker/0:2/65 is trying to acquire lock:
[  121.062519] (____ptrval____) (&n->lock){++--}, at: neigh_periodic_work+0x237/0x324
[  121.063894]
[  121.063894] but task is already holding lock:
[  121.064920] (____ptrval____) (&tbl->lock){+.-.}, at: neigh_periodic_work+0x194/0x324
[  121.066274]
[  121.066274] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  121.066274]
[  121.067693]
[  121.067693] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
...

Fix by renaming neigh_change_state to neigh_update_gc_list, changing
it to only manage whether an entry should be on the gc_list and taking
locks in the same order as neigh_periodic_work. Invoke at the end of
neigh_update only if diff between old or new states has the PERMANENT
flag set.

Fixes: 8cc196d6

 ("neighbor: gc_list changes should be protected by table lock")
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent aeb3fecd
......@@ -127,30 +127,30 @@ static void neigh_mark_dead(struct neighbour *n)
}
}
static void neigh_change_state(struct neighbour *n, u8 new)
static void neigh_update_gc_list(struct neighbour *n)
{
bool on_gc_list = !list_empty(&n->gc_list);
bool new_is_perm = new & NUD_PERMANENT;
bool on_gc_list, new_is_perm;
n->nud_state = new;
write_lock_bh(&n->tbl->lock);
write_lock(&n->lock);
/* remove from the gc list if new state is permanent;
* add to the gc list if new state is not permanent
*/
new_is_perm = n->nud_state & NUD_PERMANENT;
on_gc_list = !list_empty(&n->gc_list);
if (new_is_perm && on_gc_list) {
write_lock_bh(&n->tbl->lock);
list_del_init(&n->gc_list);
write_unlock_bh(&n->tbl->lock);
atomic_dec(&n->tbl->gc_entries);
} else if (!new_is_perm && !on_gc_list) {
/* add entries to the tail; cleaning removes from the front */
write_lock_bh(&n->tbl->lock);
list_add_tail(&n->gc_list, &n->tbl->gc_list);
write_unlock_bh(&n->tbl->lock);
atomic_inc(&n->tbl->gc_entries);
}
write_unlock(&n->lock);
write_unlock_bh(&n->tbl->lock);
}
static bool neigh_del(struct neighbour *n, __u8 state, __u8 flags,
......@@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ static int __neigh_update(struct neighbour *neigh, const u8 *lladdr,
neigh_del_timer(neigh);
if (old & NUD_CONNECTED)
neigh_suspect(neigh);
neigh_change_state(neigh, new);
neigh->nud_state = new;
err = 0;
notify = old & NUD_VALID;
if ((old & (NUD_INCOMPLETE | NUD_PROBE)) &&
......@@ -1299,7 +1299,7 @@ static int __neigh_update(struct neighbour *neigh, const u8 *lladdr,
((new & NUD_REACHABLE) ?
neigh->parms->reachable_time :
0)));
neigh_change_state(neigh, new);
neigh->nud_state = new;
notify = 1;
}
......@@ -1360,6 +1360,9 @@ out:
neigh_update_is_router(neigh, flags, &notify);
write_unlock_bh(&neigh->lock);
if ((new ^ old) & NUD_PERMANENT)
neigh_update_gc_list(neigh);
if (notify)
neigh_update_notify(neigh, nlmsg_pid);
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment