Re: [syzbot] [net?] WARNING: locking bug in tcp_tsq_handler

[Hillf Danton]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 22:26:25 +0900 Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
>On Aug 25, 2026 / 14:45, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 14:44:35 +0900 Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
>> > On Aug 25, 2026 / 03:50, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think 19bdb70c77d3 should be reverted.
>> >
>> > Just reverting the commit will reintroduce the other lockdep WARN that the
>> > commit addressed. I hope to have another fix to avoid the WARN.
>> >
>> I do not think you know the root cause of that lockdep warn, so reverting
>> 19bdb70c77d3 is the right thing to do because of [11, 12].
>> 
>> [11] ffa1e7ada456 ("block: Make request_queue lockdep splats show up earlier")
>> [12] Subject: Re: [PATCH] nbd: don't warn when reclassifying a busy socket lock
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260816014906.1149-1-hdanton@xxxxxxxx/
>
> I took a look in the commit [11] and the discussion [12], but couldn't follow
> why the commit 19bdb70c77d3 should be reverted. Could you elaborate a bit more
> about the reason you suggest the revert?
>
The Fixes tag in d532cddb6c60 proves Eric delivered a HBC, half baked croissant,
to lore. And the nvme-tcp tucked in the HBC hints Eric copied something from
somewhere. Finally the absence of ffa1e7ada456 in 19bdb70c77d3 proves it is
worse than a HBC. Clear dude? Or go to read [12] again?