Re: [PATCH] nbd: don't warn when reclassifying a busy socket lock

[Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 10:23:43 +0800 Hillf Danton wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 10:29 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
>> For archive purpose, syzbot report [1] where udp was not invovled defies
>> what is fixed in d532cddb6c60 ("nbd: Reclassify sockets to avoid lockdep
>> circular dependency") -- "Since the UDP socket and the NBD TCP/TLS socket
>> are different, this is a false positive."
>>
>>
>> [1] Subject: [syzbot] [net?] possible deadlock in inet_shutdown (3)
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69c37e6a.a70a0220.234938.0045.GAE@google.com/
>>
>For archive purpose, syzbot report [2] shows deadlock without either udp or
>tcp invovled. But it sounds false positive because kernfs node is removed
>while the filesystem is filling super block.
>
>[2] Subject: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_remove_by_name_ns (2)
>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6a5ca0b7.f1649fcc.2a4208.03f3.GAE@google.com/
>
For archive purpose, syzbot reports [3,4] show deadlock without either udp or
tcp invovled.

[3] Subject: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_iop_permission (2)
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6a5d14b8.42649fcc.6186.0078.GAE@google.com/

[4] Subject: [syzbot] [kernel?] possible deadlock in netif_reset_xps_queues_gt (3)
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6a5d14b9.42649fcc.6186.0079.GAE@google.com/