Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:33 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > > Linux version 2.6.17-git22 (duncan@baldrick) (gcc version 4.0.3 
> > (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)) #20 PREEMPT Tue Jul 4 10:35:04 CEST 2006
> >
> > >
> > > [ 2381.598609] =============================================
> > > [ 2381.619314] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> > > [ 2381.635497] ---------------------------------------------
> > > [ 2381.651706] atmarpd/2696 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 2381.666354]  (&skb_queue_lock_key){-+..}, at: [<c028c540>] 
> > skb_migrate+0x24/0x6c
> > > [ 2381.688848]
> >
> >
> > ok this is a real potential deadlock in a way, it takes two locks of 2
> > skbuffs without doing any kind of lock ordering; I think the following
> > patch should fix it. Just sort the lock taking order by address of the
> > skb.. it's not pretty but it's the best this can do in a minimally
> > invasive way.
> >
> 
> Isn't it a deadlock only if skb_migrate(a, b) and skb_migrate(b, a) can 
> be called concurrently?

yes, well, and if there are no  other double-takers...
>