[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJd80-0PJvB51x9ZDETPSoAtRVQ7dQ6HWwd0DYpKBgPFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:32:04 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement
fast refcount overflow protection
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-08-30 at 09:35 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 11:41 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> Can you also test with 14afee4b6092 ("net: convert sock.sk_wmem_alloc
>> >> from atomic_t to refcount_t") reverted (instead of ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT
>> >> disabled)?
>> >
>> > Nogo.
>>
>> Thanks for checking!
>>
>> > [ 44.901930] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 0 at net/netlink/af_netlink.c:374 netlink_sock_destruct+0x82/0xa0
>>
>> This is so odd if 14afee4b6092 is reverted. What is line 374 for you
>> in net/netlink/af_netlink.c?
>
> 374 WARN_ON(atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc));
>
> That line is unchanged by 14afee4b6092.
Uuuuhmm. Wow, now I'm really baffled. I thought you were getting the
warn from the next line with the refcount usage... I will keep
digging. Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists