net: core: add nested_level variable in net_device

This patch is to add a new variable 'nested_level' into the net_device
structure.
This variable will be used as a parameter of spin_lock_nested() of
dev->addr_list_lock.

netif_addr_lock() can be called recursively so spin_lock_nested() is
used instead of spin_lock() and dev->lower_level is used as a parameter
of spin_lock_nested().
But, dev->lower_level value can be updated while it is being used.
So, lockdep would warn a possible deadlock scenario.

When a stacked interface is deleted, netif_{uc | mc}_sync() is
called recursively.
So, spin_lock_nested() is called recursively too.
At this moment, the dev->lower_level variable is used as a parameter of it.
dev->lower_level value is updated when interfaces are being unlinked/linked
immediately.
Thus, After unlinking, dev->lower_level shouldn't be a parameter of
spin_lock_nested().

    A (macvlan)
    |
    B (vlan)
    |
    C (bridge)
    |
    D (macvlan)
    |
    E (vlan)
    |
    F (bridge)

    A->lower_level : 6
    B->lower_level : 5
    C->lower_level : 4
    D->lower_level : 3
    E->lower_level : 2
    F->lower_level : 1

When an interface 'A' is removed, it releases resources.
At this moment, netif_addr_lock() would be called.
Then, netdev_upper_dev_unlink() is called recursively.
Then dev->lower_level is updated.
There is no problem.

But, when the bridge module is removed, 'C' and 'F' interfaces
are removed at once.
If 'F' is removed first, a lower_level value is like below.
    A->lower_level : 5
    B->lower_level : 4
    C->lower_level : 3
    D->lower_level : 2
    E->lower_level : 1
    F->lower_level : 1

Then, 'C' is removed. at this moment, netif_addr_lock() is called
recursively.
The ordering is like this.
C(3)->D(2)->E(1)->F(1)
At this moment, the lower_level value of 'E' and 'F' are the same.
So, lockdep warns a possible deadlock scenario.

In order to avoid this problem, a new variable 'nested_level' is added.
This value is the same as dev->lower_level - 1.
But this value is updated in rtnl_unlock().
So, this variable can be used as a parameter of spin_lock_nested() safely
in the rtnl context.

Test commands:
   ip link add br0 type bridge vlan_filtering 1
   ip link add vlan1 link br0 type vlan id 10
   ip link add macvlan2 link vlan1 type macvlan
   ip link add br3 type bridge vlan_filtering 1
   ip link set macvlan2 master br3
   ip link add vlan4 link br3 type vlan id 10
   ip link add macvlan5 link vlan4 type macvlan
   ip link add br6 type bridge vlan_filtering 1
   ip link set macvlan5 master br6
   ip link add vlan7 link br6 type vlan id 10
   ip link add macvlan8 link vlan7 type macvlan

   ip link set br0 up
   ip link set vlan1 up
   ip link set macvlan2 up
   ip link set br3 up
   ip link set vlan4 up
   ip link set macvlan5 up
   ip link set br6 up
   ip link set vlan7 up
   ip link set macvlan8 up
   modprobe -rv bridge

Splat looks like:
[   36.057436][  T744] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[   36.058848][  T744] 5.9.0-rc6+ #728 Not tainted
[   36.059959][  T744] --------------------------------------------
[   36.061391][  T744] ip/744 is trying to acquire lock:
[   36.062590][  T744] ffff8c4767509280 (&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_set_rx_mode+0x19/0x30
[   36.064922][  T744]
[   36.064922][  T744] but task is already holding lock:
[   36.066626][  T744] ffff8c4767769280 (&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_uc_add+0x1e/0x60
[   36.068851][  T744]
[   36.068851][  T744] other info that might help us debug this:
[   36.070731][  T744]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[   36.070731][  T744]
[   36.072497][  T744]        CPU0
[   36.073238][  T744]        ----
[   36.074007][  T744]   lock(&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key);
[   36.075290][  T744]   lock(&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key);
[   36.076590][  T744]
[   36.076590][  T744]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[   36.076590][  T744]
[   36.078515][  T744]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[   36.078515][  T744]
[   36.080491][  T744] 3 locks held by ip/744:
[   36.081471][  T744]  #0: ffffffff98571df0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x236/0x490
[   36.083614][  T744]  #1: ffff8c4767769280 (&vlan_netdev_addr_lock_key){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_uc_add+0x1e/0x60
[   36.085942][  T744]  #2: ffff8c476c8da280 (&bridge_netdev_addr_lock_key/4){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_uc_sync+0x39/0x80
[   36.088400][  T744]
[   36.088400][  T744] stack backtrace:
[   36.089772][  T744] CPU: 6 PID: 744 Comm: ip Not tainted 5.9.0-rc6+ #728
[   36.091364][  T744] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
[   36.093630][  T744] Call Trace:
[   36.094416][  T744]  dump_stack+0x77/0x9b
[   36.095385][  T744]  __lock_acquire+0xbc3/0x1f40
[   36.096522][  T744]  lock_acquire+0xb4/0x3b0
[   36.097540][  T744]  ? dev_set_rx_mode+0x19/0x30
[   36.098657][  T744]  ? rtmsg_ifinfo+0x1f/0x30
[   36.099711][  T744]  ? __dev_notify_flags+0xa5/0xf0
[   36.100874][  T744]  ? rtnl_is_locked+0x11/0x20
[   36.101967][  T744]  ? __dev_set_promiscuity+0x7b/0x1a0
[   36.103230][  T744]  _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x38/0x70
[   36.104348][  T744]  ? dev_set_rx_mode+0x19/0x30
[   36.105461][  T744]  dev_set_rx_mode+0x19/0x30
[   36.106532][  T744]  dev_set_promiscuity+0x36/0x50
[   36.107692][  T744]  __dev_set_promiscuity+0x123/0x1a0
[   36.108929][  T744]  dev_set_promiscuity+0x1e/0x50
[   36.110093][  T744]  br_port_set_promisc+0x1f/0x40 [bridge]
[   36.111415][  T744]  br_manage_promisc+0x8b/0xe0 [bridge]
[   36.112728][  T744]  __dev_set_promiscuity+0x123/0x1a0
[   36.113967][  T744]  ? __hw_addr_sync_one+0x23/0x50
[   36.115135][  T744]  __dev_set_rx_mode+0x68/0x90
[   36.116249][  T744]  dev_uc_sync+0x70/0x80
[   36.117244][  T744]  dev_uc_add+0x50/0x60
[   36.118223][  T744]  macvlan_open+0x18e/0x1f0 [macvlan]
[   36.119470][  T744]  __dev_open+0xd6/0x170
[   36.120470][  T744]  __dev_change_flags+0x181/0x1d0
[   36.121644][  T744]  dev_change_flags+0x23/0x60
[   36.122741][  T744]  do_setlink+0x30a/0x11e0
[   36.123778][  T744]  ? __lock_acquire+0x92c/0x1f40
[   36.124929][  T744]  ? __nla_validate_parse.part.6+0x45/0x8e0
[   36.126309][  T744]  ? __lock_acquire+0x92c/0x1f40
[   36.127457][  T744]  __rtnl_newlink+0x546/0x8e0
[   36.128560][  T744]  ? lock_acquire+0xb4/0x3b0
[   36.129623][  T744]  ? deactivate_slab.isra.85+0x6a1/0x850
[   36.130946][  T744]  ? __lock_acquire+0x92c/0x1f40
[   36.132102][  T744]  ? lock_acquire+0xb4/0x3b0
[   36.133176][  T744]  ? is_bpf_text_address+0x5/0xe0
[   36.134364][  T744]  ? rtnl_newlink+0x2e/0x70
[   36.135445][  T744]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x32/0x60
[   36.136771][  T744]  ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2d8/0x380
[   36.138070][  T744]  ? rtnl_newlink+0x2e/0x70
[   36.139164][  T744]  rtnl_newlink+0x47/0x70
[ ... ]

Fixes: 845e0ebb ("net: change addr_list_lock back to static key")
Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>