On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 19:47:18 +0100 Dmitry Safonov wrote: > 1. [ 240.001391][ T833] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: > [ 240.001391][ T833] > [ 240.001635][ T833] CPU0 CPU1 > [ 240.001797][ T833] ---- ---- > [ 240.001958][ T833] lock(&p->alloc_lock); > [ 240.002083][ T833] local_irq_disable(); > [ 240.002284][ T833] lock(&ndev->lock); > [ 240.002490][ T833] lock(&p->alloc_lock); > [ 240.002709][ T833] <Interrupt> > [ 240.002819][ T833] lock(&ndev->lock); > [ 240.002937][ T833] > [ 240.002937][ T833] *** DEADLOCK *** > > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-tcp-ao-dbg/results/537021/14-self-connect-ipv6/stderr > > 2. [ 251.411647][ T71] WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock > order detected > [ 251.411986][ T71] 6.9.0-rc1-virtme #1 Not tainted > [ 251.412214][ T71] ----------------------------------------------------- > [ 251.412533][ T71] kworker/u16:1/71 [HC0[0]:SC0[2]:HE1:SE0] is > trying to acquire: > [ 251.412837][ T71] ffff888005182c28 (&p->alloc_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, > at: __get_task_comm+0x27/0x70 > [ 251.413214][ T71] > [ 251.413214][ T71] and this task is already holding: > [ 251.413527][ T71] ffff88802f83efd8 (&ul->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: > rt6_uncached_list_flush_dev+0x138/0x840 > [ 251.413887][ T71] which would create a new lock dependency: > [ 251.414153][ T71] (&ul->lock){+.-.}-{2:2} -> (&p->alloc_lock){+.+.}-{2:2} > [ 251.414464][ T71] > [ 251.414464][ T71] but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock: > [ 251.414808][ T71] (&ul->lock){+.-.}-{2:2} > > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-tcp-ao-dbg/results/537201/17-icmps-discard-ipv4/stderr > > 3. [ 264.280734][ C3] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 264.280734][ C3] > [ 264.280968][ C3] CPU0 CPU1 > [ 264.281117][ C3] ---- ---- > [ 264.281263][ C3] lock((&tw->tw_timer)); > [ 264.281427][ C3] > lock(&hashinfo->ehash_locks[i]); > [ 264.281647][ C3] lock((&tw->tw_timer)); > [ 264.281834][ C3] lock(&hashinfo->ehash_locks[i]); > > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-tcp-ao-dbg/results/547461/19-self-connect-ipv4/stderr > > I can spend some time on them after I verify that my fix for -stable > is actually fixing an issue I think it fixes. > Seems like your automation + my selftests are giving some fruits, hehe. Oh, very interesting, I don't recall these coming up before. We try to extract crashes but apparently we're missing lockdep splats. I'll try to improve the extraction logic...
