On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: >> Chain exists of: >> Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> >> CPU0 CPU1 >> ---- ---- >> lock(genl_mutex); >> lock(nlk->cb_mutex); >> lock(genl_mutex); >> lock(rtnl_mutex); >> >> *** DEADLOCK *** > > This one looks legitimate, because nlk->cb_mutex could be rtnl_mutex. > Let me think about it.
Never mind. Actually both reports in this thread are legitimate. I know what happened now, the lock chain is so long, 4 locks are involved to form a chain!!! Let me think about how to break the chain.
