[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-Q-QYvFvQG2usfv@mini-arch>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:49:53 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>
Cc: "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"sdf@...ichev.me" <sdf@...ichev.me>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] net: hold instance lock during
NETDEV_REGISTER/UP/UNREGISTER
On 03/26, Cosmin Ratiu wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-03-26 at 08:23 -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > @@ -2028,7 +2028,7 @@ int unregister_netdevice_notifier(struct
> > notifier_block *nb)
> >
> > for_each_net(net) {
> > __rtnl_net_lock(net);
> > - call_netdevice_unregister_net_notifiers(nb, net,
> > true);
> > + call_netdevice_unregister_net_notifiers(nb, net,
> > NULL);
> > __rtnl_net_unlock(net);
> > }
>
> I tested. The deadlock is back now, because dev != NULL and if the lock
> is held (like in the below stack), the mutex_lock will be attempted
> again:
I think I'm missing something. In this case I'm not sure why the original
"fix" worked.
You, presumably, use mlx5? And you just move this single device into
a new netns? Or there is a couple of other mlx5 devices still hanging in
the root netns?
I'll try to take a look more at register_netdevice_notifier_net under
mlx5..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists