On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov [off-list ref] wrote:
I am confused. Lockdep has observed both of these stacks:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock);
lock(_xmit_ETHER#2);
lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock);
lock(_xmit_ETHER#2);
So it somehow happened. Or what do you mean?
Lockdep said " possible circular locking dependency detected " .
It is not an actual deadlock, but lockdep machinery firing.
For a dead lock to happen, this would require that he ICMP message
sent by ip_expire() is itself fragmented and reassembled.
This cannot be, because ICMP messages are not candidates for
fragmentation, but lockdep can not know that of course...