[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8737z1q6oh.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:23:02 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 09/10] kasan: Prevent deadlock in kasan reporting
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com> writes:
> 2015-08-26 11:26 GMT+03:00 Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
>> We we end up calling kasan_report in real mode, our shadow mapping
>> for even spinlock variable will show poisoned.
>
> Generally I agree with this patch. We should disable reports when we
> print report as early
> as possible to prevent recursion in case of bug in spinlock or printk etc.
>
> But I don't understand what is the problem that you observing.
> How we ended up with shadow poisoned for a valid spinlock struct?
> And since shadow poisoned for some valid memory we should get
> enormous amount of false positive reports.
>
I still haven't fully isolated all the .c files which should not be
kasan instrumented. That means in case of ppc64 i ended up calling
kasan _load/_store in real mode. That will result in failure w.r.t
to the above spin_lock code.
-aneesh
--
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