Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933106AbcLIAcd (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:32:33 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f196.google.com ([209.85.161.196]:35918 "EHLO mail-yw0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933047AbcLIAcb (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:32:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <0227d7e83cc5ac0a192d1ba0fee61413@codeaurora.org> From: Cong Wang Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:32:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: net: deadlock on genl_mutex To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: syzkaller , Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Matti Vaittinen , Tycho Andersen , Florian Westphal , stephen hemminger , Tom Herbert , netdev , LKML , Richard Guy Briggs , netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 473 Lines: 15 On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Chain exists of: > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(genl_mutex); > lock(nlk->cb_mutex); > lock(genl_mutex); > lock(rtnl_mutex); > > *** DEADLOCK *** This one looks legitimate, because nlk->cb_mutex could be rtnl_mutex. Let me think about it.