From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:31:06 +0000
Subject: Re: sctp: hang in sctp_remaddr_seq_show
Message-Id: <5147333A.3010907@gmail.com>
List-Id: <linux-sctp.vger.kernel.org>
References: <51434D78.9030308@oracle.com>  <20130318110415.GA9478@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <1363620340.29475.132.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
In-Reply-To: <1363620340.29475.132.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>, sri@us.ibm.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

On 03/18/2013 11:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 07:04 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why the process would never get back to the schedule, but looking
>> at the sctp_remaddr_seq_show function, I think that we should convert this
>> sequence:
>> 	sctp_local_bh_disable();
>> 	read_lock(&head->lock);
>> 	rcu_read_lock();
>>
>> to this:
>> 	read_lock(&head->lock);
>> 	rcu_read_lock_bh();
>>
>> Neil
>
> I dont think so.
>
> BH needs to be disabled before read_lock(&head->lock);
>
> or else, write_lock() could deadlock (assuming it can be called from BH)
>
>

If anything, this should probably be done like this:

rcu_read_lock();
read_lock_bh(&head->lock)
...

read_unlock_bh(&head->lock)
rcu_read_unlock();

-vlad