Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (4494) and RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/rtnetlink.c (940)

From: Jay Vosburgh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:48:38 -0800

Cong Wang <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Thomas Glanzmann <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> this morning I checked out Linus tip and compiled it after booting my
>> dmesg is full of:
>>
>> [    8.944991] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (4494)
>> [    8.950640] CPU: 3 PID: 388 Comm: kworker/u24:4 Not tainted 3.14.0-rc1+ #3
>> [    8.950642] Hardware name: Supermicro X9SRD-F/X9SRD-F, BIOS 1.0a 10/15/2012
>> [    8.950654] Workqueue: bond0 bond_3ad_state_machine_handler [bonding]
>> [    8.950658]  0000000000000000 ffff881020c88000 ffffffff8138e219 ffff881020c88000
>> [    8.950664]  ffffffff812d3091 ffff881023961040 ffffffff812e3132 0000000000000246
>> [    8.950670]  0000000000000020 ffff881020ab1be8 0000000020ab1ba8 0000000000000000
>> [    8.950675] Call Trace:
>> [    8.950686]  [<ffffffff8138e219>] ? dump_stack+0x41/0x51
>> [    8.950694]  [<ffffffff812d3091>] ? netdev_master_upper_dev_get+0x2a/0x4d
>> [    8.950699]  [<ffffffff812e3132>] ? rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x2c/0xac4
>> [    8.950707]  [<ffffffff81072211>] ? print_time.part.5+0x50/0x54
>> [    8.950715]  [<ffffffff812caf94>] ? __kmalloc_reserve.isra.42+0x2a/0x6d
>> [    8.950721]  [<ffffffff81102040>] ? ksize+0x12/0x1e
>> [    8.950726]  [<ffffffff812cb2b7>] ? __alloc_skb+0xb5/0x1a9
>> [    8.950731]  [<ffffffff812e4626>] ? rtmsg_ifinfo+0x6c/0xd6
>> [    8.950739]  [<ffffffffa035f4f9>] ? __enable_port.isra.17+0x51/0x5a [bonding]
>> [    8.950747]  [<ffffffffa0360463>] ? ad_agg_selection_logic+0x3d3/0x3ed [bonding]
>> [    8.950754]  [<ffffffffa0360d40>] ? bond_3ad_state_machine_handler+0x555/0x918 [bonding]
>> [    8.950761]  [<ffffffff8104db2d>] ? process_one_work+0x191/0x293
>> [    8.950766]  [<ffffffff8104dfde>] ? worker_thread+0x121/0x1e7
>> [    8.950770]  [<ffffffff8104debd>] ? rescuer_thread+0x269/0x269
>> [    8.950777]  [<ffffffff810527b6>] ? kthread+0x99/0xa1
>> [    8.950782]  [<ffffffff8105271d>] ? __kthread_parkme+0x59/0x59
>> [    8.950789]  [<ffffffff8139733c>] ? ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [    8.950794]  [<ffffffff8105271d>] ? __kthread_parkme+0x59/0x59
>
>
>Hmm, rtmsg_ifinfo() should be called with rtnl lock, but
>__enable_port() is called
>with rcu_read_lock() which means we can't block inside it, therefore we probably
>should take rtnl lock outside:
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>index cce1f1b..3c09ffa 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>@@ -2065,6 +2065,7 @@ void bond_3ad_state_machine_handler(struct
>work_struct *work)
>        struct slave *slave;
>        struct port *port;
>
>+       rtnl_lock();
>        read_lock(&bond->lock);
>        rcu_read_lock();
>
>@@ -2123,6 +2124,7 @@ void bond_3ad_state_machine_handler(struct
>work_struct *work)
> re_arm:
>        rcu_read_unlock();
>        read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>+       rtnl_unlock();
>        queue_delayed_work(bond->wq, &bond->ad_work, ad_delta_in_ticks);
> }

	That would eliminate the warning, but is suboptimal.  Acquiring
RTNL is not necessary on the vast majority of state machine runs
(because no state changes take place, i.e., no ports are disabled or
enabled).  The above change would add 10 round trips per second to RTNL,
which seems excessive.

	Also, we cannot unconditionally acquire RTNL in this function,
as it would race with the call to cancel_delayed_work_sync from
bond_close (via bond_work_cancel_all).

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [email-masked]