linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: lpfc: Fix the misuse of the logging function

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: <7a721ee3-2a71-ffda-a818-796ebc81d288@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 15:57:55 -0700
From:   James Smart <jsmart2021@...il.com>
To:     Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@...il.com>, james.smart@...adcom.com,
        dick.kennedy@...adcom.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: lpfc: Fix the misuse of the logging function

On 10/14/2021 11:33 PM, Zheyu Ma wrote:
> When the driver fails in lpfc_enable_pci_dev(), it will call
> lpfc_printf_log(), and in a certain case the lpfc_dmp_dbg() is
> eventually called, this function uses 'phba->port_list_lock', and at
> this time this lock is not been initialized, which may cause a bug.
> 
> Fix this by using 'dev_printk' to replace the previous function.
> 
> The following log reveals it:
> 
> [   32.955597  ] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> [   32.956002  ] The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
> [   32.956491  ] you didn't initialize this object before use?
> [   32.956916  ] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> [   32.958801  ] Call Trace:
> [   32.958994  ]  dump_stack_lvl+0xa8/0xd1
> [   32.959286  ]  dump_stack+0x15/0x17
> [   32.959547  ]  assign_lock_key+0x212/0x220
> [   32.959853  ]  ? SOFTIRQ_verbose+0x10/0x10
> [   32.960158  ]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd6/0x130
> [   32.960483  ]  register_lock_class+0x126/0x790
> [   32.960815  ]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x33/0x70
> [   32.961233  ]  __lock_acquire+0xe9/0x1e20
> [   32.961565  ]  ? delete_node+0x71e/0x790
> [   32.961859  ]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
> [   32.962220  ]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd6/0x130
> [   32.962545  ]  lock_acquire+0x244/0x490
> [   32.962831  ]  ? lpfc_dmp_dbg+0x65/0x600 [lpfc]
> [   32.963241  ]  ? __kasan_check_write+0x14/0x20
> [   32.963572  ]  ? read_lock_is_recursive+0x20/0x20
> [   32.963921  ]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
> [   32.964284  ]  ? lpfc_dmp_dbg+0x65/0x600 [lpfc]
> [   32.964685  ]  ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x29/0x70
> [   32.965086  ]  ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> [   32.965410  ]  ? trace_irq_disable_rcuidle+0x85/0x170
> [   32.965787  ]  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4e/0x70
> [   32.966124  ]  ? lpfc_dmp_dbg+0x65/0x600 [lpfc]
> [   32.966526  ]  lpfc_dmp_dbg+0x65/0x600 [lpfc]
> [   32.966913  ]  ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x162/0x710
> [   32.967269  ]  ? error_prone+0x25/0x30 [lpfc]
> [   32.967657  ]  lpfc_enable_pci_dev+0x157/0x250 [lpfc]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@...il.com>

Zheyu,

Thank you for the time and effort on this. Your points are all valid. 
However, we'd like to correct this using a slightly different method. 
We will post a different patch shortly for the issue.

-- james