linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stackdepot: Use a raw spinlock in stack depot

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]

Message-ID: <77634a8e-74ab-4e95-530e-c2c46db8baa7@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 08:34:13 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stackdepot: Use a raw spinlock in stack depot


> So why is this a false positive that we just need to silence?
> I see LOCKDEP is saying we are doing something wrong, and your
> description just describes how we are doing something wrong :)
> If this is a special false positive case, it would be good to have a
> comment on DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK explaining why we are using it.
>
> I wonder why we never saw this on syzbot. Is it an RT kernel or some
> other special config?

This happened in a special configuration that triggered ACPI errors at 
boot time.

It's probably not something that is normally executed, as well as syzbot is

probably not exercising bootup anyways.

> A similar issue was discussed recently for RT kernel:
> https://groups.google.com/g/kasan-dev/c/MyHh8ov-ciU/m/nahiuqFLAQAJ
> And I think it may be fixable in the same way -- make stackdepot not
> allocate in contexts where it's not OK to allocate.


Yes that's a good idea. I've seen also other errors about the allocator 
triggered

by stack depot being in the wrong context. Probably doing that would be 
the right

fix. But I actually tried to switch depot to GFP_ATOMIC allocations 
(from GFP_NOWAIT),

but it didn't help, so I'm not fully sure what needs to be changed.

-Andi