When booting kernel with LOCKDEP option, below warning info was found:

WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
4.19.0-rc7+ #14 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
00000000dcfc0fc8 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at: spin_lock_bh
include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
00000000dcfc0fc8 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
tipc_link_reset+0x125/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:850

but task is already holding lock:
00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at: spin_lock_bh
include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
tipc_link_reset+0xfa/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:849

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#4);
  lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#4);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

 May be due to missing lock nesting notation

2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
 #0: 00000000f7539d34 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}, at:
register_pernet_subsys+0x19/0x40 net/core/net_namespace.c:1051
 #1: 00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
 #1: 00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
tipc_link_reset+0xfa/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:849

stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.19.0-rc7+ #14
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
 __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
 dump_stack+0x1af/0x295 lib/dump_stack.c:113
 print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1759 [inline]
 check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1803 [inline]
 validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2399 [inline]
 __lock_acquire+0xf1e/0x3c60 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3411
 lock_acquire+0x1db/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3900
 __raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:135 [inline]
 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x31/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:168
 spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
 tipc_link_reset+0x125/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:850
 tipc_link_bc_create+0xb5/0x1f0 net/tipc/link.c:526
 tipc_bcast_init+0x59b/0xab0 net/tipc/bcast.c:521
 tipc_init_net+0x472/0x610 net/tipc/core.c:82
 ops_init+0xf7/0x520 net/core/net_namespace.c:129
 __register_pernet_operations net/core/net_namespace.c:940 [inline]
 register_pernet_operations+0x453/0xac0 net/core/net_namespace.c:1011
 register_pernet_subsys+0x28/0x40 net/core/net_namespace.c:1052
 tipc_init+0x83/0x104 net/tipc/core.c:140
 do_one_initcall+0x109/0x70a init/main.c:885
 do_initcall_level init/main.c:953 [inline]
 do_initcalls init/main.c:961 [inline]
 do_basic_setup init/main.c:979 [inline]
 kernel_init_freeable+0x4bd/0x57f init/main.c:1144
 kernel_init+0x13/0x180 init/main.c:1063
 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:413

The reason why the noise above was complained by LOCKDEP is because we
nested to hold l->wakeupq.lock and l->inputq->lock in tipc_link_reset
function. In fact it's unnecessary to move skb buffer from l->wakeupq
queue to l->inputq queue while holding the two locks at the same time.
Instead, we can move skb buffers in l->wakeupq queue to a temporary
list first and then move the buffers of the temporary list to l->inputq
queue, which is also safe for us.

Fixes: 3f32d0be ("tipc: lock wakeup & inputq at tipc_link_reset()")
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>