[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKSD8nRMJ11DpKRe8M79W9MZ2eowAafXOQ9_WCj4dZXug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:39:45 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: james.l.morris@...cle.com,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: yama: lockdep warning on yama_ptracer_del
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was fuzzing with trinity within a KVM tools guest (lkvm) on a linux-next kernel, and got the
> following dump which I believe to be noise due to how the timers work - but I'm not 100% sure.
> ...
> [ 954.674123] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 954.674123]
> [ 954.674123] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 954.674123] ---- ----
> [ 954.674123] lock(ptracer_relations_lock);
> [ 954.674123] local_irq_disable();
> [ 954.674123] lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> [ 954.674123] lock(ptracer_relations_lock);
> [ 954.674123] <Interrupt>
> [ 954.674123] lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> [ 954.674123]
> [ 954.674123] *** DEADLOCK ***
I've been wanting to get rid of the Yama ptracer_relations_lock
anyway, so maybe I should do that now just to avoid this case at all?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists