[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [CHECKER] more potential deadlocks
    On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Dawson Engler wrote:

    > --------------------------------------------------
    > BUG? but might be that the two different head pointers cannot point to
    > the same object. not clear alias analysis will actually help here
    > since things are so hairy.
    > ERROR: 1 thread deadlock.
    > <&tw_death_lock>-><struct tcp_bind_hashbucket.lock (<local>:0)> occurred 1 times
    > <struct tcp_bind_hashbucket.lock (<local>:0)>-><&tw_death_lock> occurred 1 times

    Not a bug. The call chain is invalid:

    > ->/u2/engler/mc/oses/linux/linux-2.5.62/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:tcp_v4_hash_connect:683
    > ->/u2/engler/mc/oses/linux/linux-2.5.62/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:tcp_v4_hash_connect:694
    > ->/u2/engler/mc/oses/linux/linux-2.5.62/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:__tcp_v4_check_established:561
    > ->/u2/engler/mc/oses/linux/linux-2.5.62/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:__tcp_v4_check_established:622
    > ->/u2/engler/mc/oses/linux/linux-2.5.62/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:__tcp_v4_check_established:629
    > ->end=/u2/engler/mc/oses/linux/linux-2.5.62/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:tcp_tw_deschedule:481

    The call to __tcp_v4_check_established() at line 694 takes a &tw paramater
    which cannot be null. This means that the call to tcp_tw_deschedule() at
    line 629 will not happen and tw_death_lock is thus not taken on this path
    while also holding a tcp_bind_hashbucket.lock.

    If the caller provides a &tw param, a time-wait bucket (if found) is
    returned via it to be destroyed outside the hash bucket lock.

    > BUG: seems like it, if they can point to the same thing. ERROR: 1 thread deadlock.
    > <struct in_device.lock (<local>:0)>-><struct ip_mc_list.lock (<local>:0)> occurred 5 times
    > <struct ip_mc_list.lock (<local>:0)>-><struct in_device.lock (<local>:0)> occurred 5 times

    See below.

    > BUG? very hard to follow, but interesting if a real bug. unfortunately,
    > could also be a false positive because of
    > 1. infeasible callchain path or
    > 2. the various in_dev and im pointers never actually point to
    > the same object.
    > requires three threads:
    > thread 1: acquires im->lock then tries to get inetdev_lock
    > thread 2: acquires inetdev_lock and tries to get in_dev->lock.
    > thread 3: acquires in_dev->lock and tries to get im->lock.
    > ERROR: 2 thread deadlock.
    > <struct ip_mc_list.lock (<local>:0)>-><&inetdev_lock> occurred 5 times
    > <&inetdev_lock>-><struct ip_mc_list.lock (<local>:0)> occurred 4 times

    These are indeed potential deadlock cases, caused by holding im->lock for
    too long, now fixed by Alexey (in 2.5 bk at least).

    - James
    James Morris

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.028 / U:14.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site