[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5264952c-6dae-47d8-9ee8-c837e69330be@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 21:22:23 -0800
From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: syzbot <syzbot+a4a503d7f37292ae1664@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, zohar@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: inconsistent lock state in ima_process_queued_keys
On 1/17/2020 7:14 PM, syzbot wrote:
> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
> Reported-by: syzbot+a4a503d7f37292ae1664@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>
> ================================
> WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> 5.5.0-rc6-next-20200116-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------
> inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
> kworker/u4:3/125 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
> ffffffff8a03ce58 (ima_keys_lock){+.?.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
> ffffffff8a03ce58 (ima_keys_lock){+.?.}, at: ima_process_queued_keys+0x4f/0x320 security/integrity/ima/ima_asymmetric_keys.c:144
> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
The fix for this issue is in next-integrity branch. Should be merged to
linux-next shortly.
-lakshmi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists