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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:18:11 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, syzbot <syzbot+bfdded10ab7dcd7507ae@...kaller.appspotmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org> Subject: Re: possible deadlock in start_this_handle (2) On 2021/02/12 1:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > But I suspect we have drifted away from the original issue. I thought > that a simple check would help us narrow down this particular case and > somebody messing up from the IRQ context didn't sound like a completely > off. > From my experience at https://lkml.kernel.org/r/201409192053.IHJ35462.JLOMOSOFFVtQFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp , I think we can replace direct PF_* manipulation with macros which do not receive "struct task_struct *" argument. Since TASK_PFA_TEST()/TASK_PFA_SET()/TASK_PFA_CLEAR() are for manipulating PFA_* flags on a remote thread, we can define similar ones for manipulating PF_* flags on current thread. Then, auditing dangerous users becomes easier.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists