[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpW-KNT4iZPwtHMzzBxvPVvvn6+9OfJMcUjBOXS_zJ_NEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:13:50 -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 10:02 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> Chain exists of:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(nlk->cb_mutex);
> lock(&table[i].mutex);
> lock(nlk->cb_mutex);
> lock(genl_mutex);
Similar to the unix bindlock, this one looks false positive to me too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists