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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:51:39 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: possible deadlock in skb_queue_tail

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
>        CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(&(&pcpu->lock)->rlock);
>                                lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#3);
>                                lock(&(&pcpu->lock)->rlock);
>   lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#3);
>

They are different types of sockets and different lists of skb's,
one is netlink socket the other is udp socket, so I don't think
we could have a deadlock in this scenario, we probably need to
explicitly mark them as different lockdep classes.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists