To dereference bond->curr_active_slave, it uses rcu_dereference().
But it and the caller doesn't acquire RCU so a warning occurs.
So add rcu_read_lock().
Test commands:
ip link add dummy0 type dummy
ip link add bond0 type bond
ip link set dummy0 master bond0
ip link set dummy0 up
ip link set bond0 up
ip x s add proto esp dst 14.1.1.1 src 15.1.1.1 spi 0x07 \
mode transport \
reqid 0x07 replay-window 32 aead 'rfc4106(gcm(aes))' \
0x44434241343332312423222114131211f4f3f2f1 128 sel \
src 14.0.0.52/24 dst 14.0.0.70/24 proto tcp offload \
dev bond0 dir in
Splat looks like:
=============================
WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
5.13.0-rc3+ #1168 Not tainted
-----------------------------
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c:411 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
other info that might help us debug this:
rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
1 lock held by ip/684:
#0: ffffffff9a2757c0 (&net->xfrm.xfrm_cfg_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3},
at: xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x59/0x80 [xfrm_user]
55.191733][ T684] stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 684 Comm: ip Not tainted 5.13.0-rc3+ #1168
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0xa4/0xe5
bond_ipsec_add_sa+0x18c/0x1f0 [bonding]
xfrm_dev_state_add+0x2a9/0x770
? memcpy+0x38/0x60
xfrm_add_sa+0x2278/0x3b10 [xfrm_user]
? xfrm_get_policy+0xaa0/0xaa0 [xfrm_user]
? register_lock_class+0x1750/0x1750
xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x331/0x660 [xfrm_user]
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x91/0xc0
? xfrm_user_state_lookup.constprop.39+0x320/0x320 [xfrm_user]
? find_held_lock+0x3a/0x1c0
? mutex_lock_io_nested+0x1210/0x1210
? sched_clock_cpu+0x18/0x170
netlink_rcv_skb+0x121/0x350
? xfrm_user_state_lookup.constprop.39+0x320/0x320 [xfrm_user]
? netlink_ack+0x9d0/0x9d0
? netlink_deliver_tap+0x17c/0xa50
xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x68/0x80 [xfrm_user]
netlink_unicast+0x41c/0x610
? netlink_attachskb+0x710/0x710
netlink_sendmsg+0x6b9/0xb70
[ ... ]
Fixes: 18cb261afd ("bonding: support hardware encryption offload to slaves")
Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
b648eba4c6