From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: net: deadlock between ip_expire/sch_direct_xmit
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:58:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bEk8TFZDcuH9S6AJ0A8uJs7ptS3ELHe-DcxkEE3Oanhg@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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iLO1neA3-4ipYr==n_3iDXDXgY0MCkPkp=cEf8n4w6i=g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

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.