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:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:19:55 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Will Deacon <>,,
        syzbot <>,
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! (2)

On 7/9/19 10:30 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> [Moved most people to Bcc; syzbot added way too many random people to this.]
> Hi Bart,
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 07:17:09PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 3/30/19 2:58 PM, syzbot wrote:
>>> syzbot has bisected this bug to:
>>> commit 669de8bda87b92ab9a2fc663b3f5743c2ad1ae9f
>>> Author: Bart Van Assche <>
>>> Date:   Thu Feb 14 23:00:54 2019 +0000
>>>       kernel/workqueue: Use dynamic lockdep keys for workqueues
>>> bisection log:
>>> start commit:   0e40da3e Merge tag 'kbuild-fixes-v5.1' of
>>> git://git.kernel..
>>> git tree:       upstream
>>> final crash:
>>> console output:
>>> kernel config:
>>> dashboard link:
>>> syz repro:
>>> C reproducer:
>>> Reported-by:
>>> Fixes: 669de8bda87b ("kernel/workqueue: Use dynamic lockdep keys for
>>> workqueues")
>>> For information about bisection process see:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>> This bisection result doesn't make sense to me. As one can see, the message
>> "BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!" does not occur in the console output
>> the above console output URL points at.
>> Bart.
> This is still happening on mainline, and I think this bisection result is
> probably correct.  syzbot did start hitting something different at the very end
> of the bisection ("WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 9153 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:747")
> but that seems to be just because your commit had a lot of bugs in it, which had
> to be fixed by later commits.  In particular, the WARNING seems to have been
> fixed by commit 28d49e282665e ("locking/lockdep: Shrink struct lock_class_key").
> What seems to still be happening is that the dynamic lockdep keys which you
> added make it possible for an unbounded number of entries to be added to the
> fixed length stack_trace[] array in kernel/locking/lockdep.c.  Hence the "BUG:
> Am I understanding it correctly?  How did you intend this to work?

The last two paragraphs do not make sense to me. My changes do not 
increase the number of stack traces that get recorded by the lockdep code.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists