On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 05:45:53PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote: > But it is the caller's responsibility to destroy it since commit > dd37d2f59eb8. > > > The causes are as follows: > > > > rdma_listen() > > rdma_bind_addr() > > cma_acquire_dev_by_src_ip() > > cma_attach_to_dev() > > _cma_attach_to_dev() > > cma_dev_get() > > Thanks for the analysis. > > And for the two callers of cma_listen_on_dev, looks they have > different behaviors with regard to handling failure. Yes, the CM is not the problem, and that print from it is unrelated I patched in netdevice_tracker and get this: [ 237.475070][ T7541] unregister_netdevice: waiting for vlan0 to become free. Usage count = 2 [ 237.477311][ T7541] leaked reference. [ 237.478378][ T7541] ib_device_set_netdev+0x266/0x730 [ 237.479848][ T7541] siw_newlink+0x4e0/0xfd0 [ 237.481100][ T7541] nldev_newlink+0x35c/0x5c0 [ 237.482121][ T7541] rdma_nl_rcv_msg+0x36d/0x690 [ 237.483312][ T7541] rdma_nl_rcv+0x2ee/0x430 [ 237.484483][ T7541] netlink_unicast+0x543/0x7f0 [ 237.485746][ T7541] netlink_sendmsg+0x918/0xe20 [ 237.486866][ T7541] sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120 [ 237.488006][ T7541] ____sys_sendmsg+0x70d/0x8b0 [ 237.489294][ T7541] ___sys_sendmsg+0x11d/0x1b0 [ 237.490404][ T7541] __sys_sendmsg+0xfa/0x1d0 [ 237.491451][ T7541] do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 [ 237.492566][ T7541] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Which seems to confirm my original prediction, except this is siw not rxe.. Maybe rxe was the wrong guess, or maybe it is troubled too in other reports? Jason
