linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] IB/hfi1: might sleep under spinlock in hfi1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:58:18 -0400
From:	"ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>
Cc:	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] IB/hfi1: might sleep under spinlock in hfi1_ioctl()

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:32:29AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
> dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
> copy_from_user, kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL), etc.).
> 
> Should dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock be acquired just before updating state?

I believe you are correct.

I am currently in the process of pushing fixes to the staging tree.

We have a patch which fixes this queued up but it depends on at least one other
patch in my queue.

I will do my best to get this submitted soon.

Thanks,
Ira

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/