[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpW2x5xeBpxnZx+k+vnKkjxWPycCBpiKZE41Kcp5gBsN4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:08:47 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...ia.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
stephen hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net: deadlock on genl_mutex
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Chain exists of:
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> lock(genl_mutex);
>> lock(nlk->cb_mutex);
>> lock(genl_mutex);
>> lock(rtnl_mutex);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> This one looks legitimate, because nlk->cb_mutex could be rtnl_mutex.
> Let me think about it.
Never mind. Actually both reports in this thread are legitimate.
I know what happened now, the lock chain is so long, 4 locks are involved
to form a chain!!!
Let me think about how to break the chain.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists