On 5/19/20 2:45 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Sequence counters write paths are critical sections that must never be
> preempted, and blocking, even for CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n, is not allowed.
>
> Commit 5dbe7c178d3f ("net: fix kernel deadlock with interface rename and
> netdev name retrieval.") handled a deadlock, observed with
> CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n, where the devnet_rename seqcount read side was
> infinitely spinning: it got scheduled after the seqcount write side
> blocked inside its own critical section.
>
> To fix that deadlock, among other issues, the commit added a
> cond_resched() inside the read side section. While this will get the
> non-preemptible kernel eventually unstuck, the seqcount reader is fully
> exhausting its slice just spinning -- until TIF_NEED_RESCHED is set.
>
> The fix is also still broken: if the seqcount reader belongs to a
> real-time scheduling policy, it can spin forever and the kernel will
> livelock.
>
> Disabling preemption over the seqcount write side critical section will
> not work: inside it are a number of GFP_KERNEL allocations and mutex
> locking through the drivers/base/ :: device_rename() call chain.
>
> From all the above, replace the seqcount with a rwsem.
>
> Fixes: 5dbe7c178d3f (net: fix kernel deadlock with interface rename and
> netdev name retrieval.)
> Fixes: 30e6c9fa93cf (net: devnet_rename_seq should be a seqcount)
> Fixes: c91f6df2db49 (sockopt: Change getsockopt() of SO_BINDTODEVICE to
> return an interface name)
> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darw...@linutronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
> ---
> net/core/dev.c | 30 ++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
Seems fine to me, assuming rwsem prevent starvation of the writer.
(Presumably this could be a per ndevice rwsem, or per netns, to provide some
isolation)
Alternative would be to convert ndev->name from char array to a pointer (rcu
protected),
but this looks quite invasive change, certainly not for stable branches.
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
