Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753151AbdCNO65 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:58:57 -0400
Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:36120 "EHLO
        mail-ua0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750805AbdCNO6x (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:58:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iLO1neA3-4ipYr==n_3iDXDXgY0MCkPkp=cEf8n4w6i=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACT4Y+ZrHr0Cqw5RPeZ6QW16auOPyKSCOea6AciHBswAT3t14Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1489502504.28631.115.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CACT4Y+bLJtO55iP5uNPZV+_B+H5-Z2gOiF26sXDmWk9L0rESsw@mail.gmail.com> <CANn89iLO1neA3-4ipYr==n_3iDXDXgY0MCkPkp=cEf8n4w6i=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:58:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bEk8TFZDcuH9S6AJ0A8uJs7ptS3ELHe-DcxkEE3Oanhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: net: deadlock between ip_expire/sch_direct_xmit
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 931
Lines: 26

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>
>> I am confused. Lockdep has observed both of these stacks:
>>
>>        CPU0                    CPU1
>>        ----                    ----
>>   lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock);
>>                                lock(_xmit_ETHER#2);
>>                                lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock);
>>   lock(_xmit_ETHER#2);
>>
>>
>> So it somehow happened. Or what do you mean?
>>
>
> Lockdep said " possible circular locking dependency detected " .
> It is not an actual deadlock, but lockdep machinery firing.
>
> For a dead lock to happen, this would require that he ICMP message
> sent by ip_expire() is itself fragmented and reassembled.
> This cannot be, because ICMP messages are not candidates for
> fragmentation, but lockdep can not know that of course...


Ah, I see. Thanks.