From: Cong Wang
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 23:35:12 -0700
> Baozeng reported this deadlock case:
>
>CPU0CPU1
>
> lock([ 165.136033] sk_lock-AF_INET6);
>lock([ 165.136033] rtnl_mutex);
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> I used 'I wonder if' to say that we might have some better way to code
> this test nowadays, but this can be done in a separate patch of course.
OK, let's keep one bugfix in one patch. ;)
On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 14:35 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-10-19 at 23:35 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> Baozeng reported this deadlock case:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +
> >> +void ipv6_sock_mc_close(struct sock *sk)
> >> +{
> >> + stru
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-10-19 at 23:35 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Baozeng reported this deadlock case:
>
> ...
>
>> +
>> +void ipv6_sock_mc_close(struct sock *sk)
>> +{
>> + struct ipv6_pinfo *np = inet6_sk(sk);
>> +
>> + if (!rcu_access_pointer(
On Wed, 2016-10-19 at 23:35 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Baozeng reported this deadlock case:
...
> +
> +void ipv6_sock_mc_close(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> + struct ipv6_pinfo *np = inet6_sk(sk);
> +
> + if (!rcu_access_pointer(np->ipv6_mc_list))
> + return;
I wonder if rcu_derefer
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:35:12PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Baozeng reported this deadlock case:
>
>CPU0CPU1
>
> lock([ 165.136033] sk_lock-AF_INET6);
>lock([ 165.136033] rtnl_mutex);
>
Baozeng reported this deadlock case:
CPU0CPU1
lock([ 165.136033] sk_lock-AF_INET6);
lock([ 165.136033] rtnl_mutex);
lock([ 165.136033] sk_lock-AF_INET6);
lock([ 165.
