[ Upstream commit 220ade77452c15ecb1ab94c3f8aaeb6d033c3582 ]
Some time ago, I reported a calltrace issue
"did not find a suitable aggregator", please see[1].
After a period of analysis and reproduction, I find
that this problem is caused by concurrency.
Before the problem occurs, the bond structure is like follows:
bond0 - slaver0(eth0) - agg0.lag_ports -> port0 - port1
\
port0
\
slaver1(eth1) - agg1.lag_ports -> NULL
\
port1
If we run 'ifenslave bond0 -d eth1', the process is like below:
excuting __bond_release_one()
|
bond_upper_dev_unlink()[step1]
| | |
| | bond_3ad_lacpdu_recv()
| | ->bond_3ad_rx_indication()
| | spin_lock_bh()
| | ->ad_rx_machine()
| | ->__record_pdu()[step2]
| | spin_unlock_bh()
| | |
| bond_3ad_state_machine_handler()
| spin_lock_bh()
| ->ad_port_selection_logic()
| ->try to find free aggregator[step3]
| ->try to find suitable aggregator[step4]
| ->did not find a suitable aggregator[step5]
| spin_unlock_bh()
| |
| |
bond_3ad_unbind_slave() |
spin_lock_bh()
spin_unlock_bh()
step1: already removed slaver1(eth1) from list, but port1 remains
step2: receive a lacpdu and update port0
step3: port0 will be removed from agg0.lag_ports. The struct is
"agg0.lag_ports -> port1" now, and agg0 is not free. At the
same time, slaver1/agg1 has been removed from the list by step1.
So we can't find a free aggregator now.
step4: can't find suitable aggregator because of step2
step5: cause a calltrace since port->aggregator is NULL
To solve this concurrency problem, put bond_upper_dev_unlink()
after bond_3ad_unbind_slave(). In this way, we can invalid the port
first and skip this port in bond_3ad_state_machine_handler(). This
eliminates the situation that the slaver has been removed from the
list but the port is still valid.
[1]https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/10374.1611947473@famine/
Signed-off-by: Yufeng Mo <moyufeng@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
5a24034ad8