linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at mm/shmem.c:LINE!

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 linux-cve-announce 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:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 07:33:53 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+b8e0dfee3fd8c9012771@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/shmem.c:LINE!

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:53:15PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Now I've learnt that an oops on 0xffffffffffffffbe points to EEXIST,
> not to EREMOTE, it's easy: patch below fixes those four xfstests
> (and no doubt a similar oops I've seen occasionally under swapping
> load): so gives clean xfstests runs for non-huge and huge tmpfs.

Excellent!

I'm adding this:

+++ b/lib/test_xarray.c
@@ -741,6 +741,13 @@ static noinline void check_create_range_2(struct xarray *xa
, unsigned order)
        XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_empty(xa));
 }
 
+static noinline void check_create_range_3(void)
+{
+       XA_STATE(xas, NULL, 0);
+       xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST);
+       xas_create_range(&xas);
+}
+
 static noinline void check_create_range(struct xarray *xa)
 {
        unsigned int order;
@@ -755,6 +762,8 @@ static noinline void check_create_range(struct xarray *xa)
                if (order < 10)
                        check_create_range_2(xa, order);
        }
+
+       check_create_range_3();
 }
 
 static LIST_HEAD(shadow_nodes);

and fixing the bug differently ;-)  But many thanks for spotting it!

I'll look into the next bug you reported ...