linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4] scsi: avoid potential deadlock in iscsi_if

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:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:40:59 +0000
From:   Lee Duncan <LDuncan@...e.com>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "wubo (T)" <wubo40@...wei.com>
CC:     "cleech@...hat.com" <cleech@...hat.com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "open-iscsi@...glegroups.com" <open-iscsi@...glegroups.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@...uni-regensburg.de>,
        Mingfangsen <mingfangsen@...wei.com>,
        "liuzhiqiang (I)" <liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] scsi: avoid potential deadlock in iscsi_if_rx func

On 12/9/19 3:11 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> wubo,
> 
>> In iscsi_if_rx func, after receiving one request through
>> iscsi_if_recv_msg func, iscsi_if_send_reply will be called to try to
>> reply the request in do-loop.  If the return of iscsi_if_send_reply
>> func return -EAGAIN all the time, one deadlock will occur.
>>
>> For example, a client only send msg without calling recvmsg func, then
>> it will result in the watchdog soft lockup.  The details are given as
>> follows,
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Bo Wu <wubo40@...wei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan <LDuncan@...e.com>
> 
> I haven't seen a Reviewed-by: from Lee on this patch.
> 

Martin:

My sincere apologies. I told wubo I had already reviewed the patch, so
he didn't need another Reviewed-by from me. I see I was wrong.

Please consider my:

Reviewed-by: Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>

in the patch to be re-verified.