[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpX9gBPOqGo_hwhNmFrUE=R1CdfJvUfkJ+HSK67ybk9LEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:51:39 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: possible deadlock in skb_queue_tail
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&(&pcpu->lock)->rlock);
> lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#3);
> lock(&(&pcpu->lock)->rlock);
> lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#3);
>
They are different types of sockets and different lists of skb's,
one is netlink socket the other is udp socket, so I don't think
we could have a deadlock in this scenario, we probably need to
explicitly mark them as different lockdep classes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists