Re: [PATCH] nbd: don't warn when reclassifying a busy socket lock

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 10:39:17 +0800 Hillf Danton wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 10:23:43 +0800 Hillf Danton wrote:
>>On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 10:29 PM Hillf Danton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> For archive purpose, syzbot report [1] where udp was not invovled defies
>>> what is fixed in d532cddb6c60 ("nbd: Reclassify sockets to avoid lockdep
>>> circular dependency") -- "Since the UDP socket and the NBD TCP/TLS socket
>>> are different, this is a false positive."
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Subject: [syzbot] [net?] possible deadlock in inet_shutdown (3)
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>>
>>For archive purpose, syzbot report [2] shows deadlock without either udp or
>>tcp invovled. But it sounds false positive because kernfs node is removed
>>while the filesystem is filling super block.
>>
>>[2] Subject: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_remove_by_name_ns (2)
>>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>
>For archive purpose, syzbot reports [3,4] show deadlock without either udp or
>tcp invovled.
>
>[3] Subject: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_iop_permission (2)
>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
>[4] Subject: [syzbot] [kernel?] possible deadlock in netif_reset_xps_queues_gt (3)
>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
For archive purpose, syzbot report [5] shows deadlock without lock_sock invovled.

[5] Subject: [syzbot] [pm?] possible deadlock in thermal_zone_device_set_mode
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/