Lockdep is unhappy if two locks from the same class are held. Fix the below warning by making __vsock_release() non-recursive -- this patch is kind of ugly, but it looks to me there is not a better way to deal with the problem here. ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 5.2.0+ #6 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- a.out/1020 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000074731a98 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock] but task is already holding lock: 0000000014ff8397 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock] other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK); lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 2 locks held by a.out/1020: #0: 00000000f8bceaa7 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#10){+.+.}, at: __sock_release+0x2d/0xa0 #1: 0000000014ff8397 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock] stack backtrace: CPU: 7 PID: 1020 Comm: a.out Not tainted 5.2.0+ #6 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x67/0x90 __lock_acquire.cold.66+0x14d/0x1f8 lock_acquire+0xb5/0x1c0 lock_sock_nested+0x6d/0x90 hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock] __vsock_release+0x24/0xf0 [vsock] __vsock_release+0xa0/0xf0 [vsock] vsock_release+0x12/0x30 [vsock] __sock_release+0x37/0xa0 sock_close+0x14/0x20 __fput+0xc1/0x250 task_work_run+0x98/0xc0 do_exit+0x3dd/0xc60 do_group_exit+0x47/0xc0 get_signal+0x169/0xc60 do_signal+0x30/0x710 exit_to_usermode_loop+0x50/0xa0 do_syscall_64+0x1fc/0x220 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c index ab47bf3..420f605 100644 --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c @@ -638,6 +638,37 @@ struct sock *__vsock_create(struct net *net, } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vsock_create); +static void __vsock_release2(struct sock *sk) +{ + if (sk) { + struct sk_buff *skb; + struct vsock_sock *vsk; + + vsk = vsock_sk(sk); + + /* The release call is supposed to use lock_sock_nested() + * rather than lock_sock(), if a lock should be acquired. + */ + transport->release(vsk); + + /* Use the nested version to avoid the warning + * "possible recursive locking detected". + */ + lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); + sock_orphan(sk); + sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK; + + while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&sk->sk_receive_queue))) + kfree_skb(skb); + + /* This sk can not be a listener, so it's unnecessary + * to call vsock_dequeue_accept(). + */ + release_sock(sk); + sock_put(sk); + } +} + static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk) { if (sk) { @@ -659,7 +690,7 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk) /* Clean up any sockets that never were accepted. */ while ((pending = vsock_dequeue_accept(sk)) != NULL) { - __vsock_release(pending); + __vsock_release2(pending); sock_put(pending); } diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c index 9d864eb..4b126b2 100644 --- a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static void hvs_release(struct vsock_sock *vsk) struct sock *sk = sk_vsock(vsk); bool remove_sock; - lock_sock(sk); + lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); remove_sock = hvs_close_lock_held(vsk); release_sock(sk); if (remove_sock) -- 1.8.3.1