[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqdJ=mF6MUPRYm7CmE_fa8GshtjxUpwwYPCKY4ob+gDAeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:05:04 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, 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
Hi Kees,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 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?
I still see this one in -rc6, is there anything to get rid of it
before the release?
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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