[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190720111013.GQ3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:10:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 13/19] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem->owner an
atomic_long_t
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 09:41:05AM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> [ 39.801179] ==================================================================
> [ 39.801973] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in rwsem_down_write_slowpath (/home/miguel/kernel/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:669 /home/miguel/kernel/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1125)
That's rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(), specifically line 669 seems to suggest
owner_on_cpu().
So we'd somehow have a dead owner; I'm not immediately seeing how that
can happen.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists