Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency

[Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:54:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> hm, i got a new one:
> 
> ============================================
> [ BUG: circular locking deadlock detected! ]
> --------------------------------------------
> sshd/28997 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (&sk->sk_lock.slock){-+}, at: [<c0c6be28>] packet_rcv+0xbf/0x34b
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&dev->xmit_lock){-+}, at: [<c0bb04ec>] qdisc_restart+0x46/0x207
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock,
> which could lead to circular deadlocks!
> 
> the dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> -> #2 (&dev->xmit_lock){-+}: [<c0bb04ec>] qdisc_restart+0x46/0x207
> -> #1 (&dev->queue_lock){-+}: [<c0b98137>] dev_queue_xmit+0xc3/0x21e
> -> #0 (&sk->sk_lock.slock){-+}: [<c0c6be28>] packet_rcv+0xbf/0x34b

I believe this is a false positive and I think I can see where it went
wrong.  The dependency between #0 and #1 is the broken premise.

The validator is probably putting all sk_lock's in the same basket.
That is, it's mixing up the socket locks for TCP, UDP as well as
AF_PACKET.  While it is true that TCP and UDP's sk_lock may sit
outside queue_lock, AF_PACKET never transmits while holding its
sk_lock.

So the #0 => #1 dependency shouldn't exist.  Can you get the validator
to print out the reasoning for the #0 => #1 dependency? That should
clarify the problem.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/