[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55C3F497.6020003@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 01:58:15 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rtnl_mutex deadlock?
On 08/07/2015 01:41 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 04:50:39PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>
>> Then, in __rhashtable_insert_fast(), I could trigger an -EBUSY when I'm
>> really unlucky and exceed the ht->elasticity limit of 16. I would then
>> end up in rhashtable_insert_rehash() to find out there's already one
>> ongoing and thus, I'm getting -EBUSY via __netlink_insert().
>
> Right, so the only way you can trigger this is if you hit a chain
> longer than 16 and the number of entries in the table is less than
> 75% the size of the table, as well as there being an existing resize
> or rehash operation.
>
> This should be pretty much impossible.
>
> But if we had a WARN_ON_ONCE there then we'll know for sure.
Looks like we had a WARN_ON() in rhashtable_insert_rehash() before, but
was removed in a87b9ebf1709 ("rhashtable: Do not schedule more than one
rehash if we can't grow further"). Do you want to re-add a WARN_ON_ONCE()?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
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