[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <317e077b-71a7-4112-a7d0-5c49efce4f39@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 21:00:46 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+186b55175d8360728234@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [kernel?] possible deadlock in stack_depot_put
On 2023/12/05 20:31, Hillf Danton wrote:
> Unlike down_trylock(), mutex_trylock() is unable to trigger any lockdep
> warning, so why is a binary semaphore prefered over mutex?
The mutex has limitations which makes it impossible to use for console lock.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc4/source/kernel/locking/mutex.c#L537
By the way, this is a KASAN bug saying "refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.".
Possibly a candidate for printk_deferred_enter() user?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists