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  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, 22 Apr 2019 09:48:08 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Jens Axboe <>
Cc:     syzbot <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Peter Anvin <>,
        Linux API <>,
        linux-arch <>,
        linux-block <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        syzkaller-bugs <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <>
Subject: Re: WARNING in percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:38 AM Jens Axboe <> wrote:
> With the mutex change in, I can trigger it in a second or so. Just ran
> the reproducer with that change reverted, and I'm not seeing any badness.
> So I do wonder if the bisect results are accurate?

Looking at the syzbot report, it's syzbot being confused.

The actual WARNING in percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm() only happens with
recent kernels.

But then syzbot mixes it up with a completely different bug:

   crash: BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!

and for some reason decides that *that* bug is the same thing entirely.

So yeah, I think the simple percpu_ref_is_dying() check is sufficient,
and that the syzbot bisection is completely bogus.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists