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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c8306569f880021bae853caf9f347e7c806ffaaa.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:40:53 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+c18f2f6a7b08c51e3025@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in ovl_maybe_copy_up

> > Should annotating the iint be limited to files on overlay filesystems?
> >
> 
> Not to overlay files specifically but to files on stacked fs,
> i.e. (inode->i_sb->s_stack_depth > 0)
> Assuming that this patch is tested(?), how come it did not hit the
> WARN_ON_ONCE(depth < 0... above?

Thanks, Amir!

As per the overlayfs comment, the depth can never be 0.  It sounds like
in this case we only want to annotate the iint mutex for regular files,
if the stacking depth is greater than 0, but less than the max depth.

(I'm still trying to reproduce the lockdep.)

Mimi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ