On Mon, 2024-02-19 at 19:33 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:04 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks for the head-up. This later option looks preferable, to avoid > > quit a bit of noise with _ONCE annotation. Is there a syzkaller splat I > > could look at? if it landed on the ML, I missed it. > > > > Not landed yet, here is the splat : > > ====================================================== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00212-g40b9385dd8e6 #0 Not tainted > ------------------------------------------------------ > syz-executor.2/24141 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff888045870130 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: > tcp_diag_put_ulp net/ipv4/tcp_diag.c:100 [inline] > ffff888045870130 (k-sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: > tcp_diag_get_aux+0x738/0x830 net/ipv4/tcp_diag.c:137 > > but task is already holding lock: > ffffc9000135e488 (&h->lhash2[i].lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock > include/linux/spinlock.h:351 [inline] > ffffc9000135e488 (&h->lhash2[i].lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: > inet_diag_dump_icsk+0x39f/0x1f80 net/ipv4/inet_diag.c:1038 [Sorry for the latency]. Yes it looks like that checking the listener status will work. I can test and send the formal patch - with the due credits! - or do you prefer otherwise? Thanks! Paolo