[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:02:28 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Davydov <VDavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible deadlock in ipv6?
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 20:01 +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 17:53 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:49 +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >>> I'm not familiar with the linux net subsystem, so I would appreciate if
> >>> someone could clarify if the following call chain is possible:
> >>>
> >>> addrconf_ifdown() calls neigh_ifdown(nd_tbl) which locks nd_tbl.lock for
> >>> writing and calls
> >>>
> >>> pneigh_ifdown
> >>> pndisc_destructor
> >>> ipv6_dev_mc_dec
> >>> __ipv6_dev_mc_dec
> >>> igmp6_group_dropped
> >>> igmp6_leave_group
> >>> igmp6_send
> >>> icmp6_dst_alloc
> >>> ip6_neigh_lookup
> >>> neigh_create
> >>>
> >>> and neigh_create() locks nd_tbl.lock for writing again resulting in a
> >>> deadlock.
> >>
> >> It seems a deadlock is possible indeed, good catch !
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And it seems this neigh_down() can be removed, its called later
> > (after dev->ip6_ptr is cleared)
> >
>
> BTW, commit d1ed113f1669390da9898da3beddcc058d938587 did exactly the same, but it was reverted along with a bundle of other commits by 73a8bd74e2618990dbb218c3d82f53e60acd9af0.
Yes, but the revert was a 'revert a serie', while this particular patch
seems fine, especially if fixing a deadlock ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists