linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] possible deadlock in __schedule (with reproducer available)

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: <CAADnVQJ+eoczS6JK7aUZSWzUFggEyXW+w4oMiB4iY4F9FpMVRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 18:27:57 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ruan Bonan <bonan.ruan@...us.edu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>, 
	BPF <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] possible deadlock in __schedule (with reproducer available)

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 3:04 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:15:48 -0800 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 1:44 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 05:24:05AM +0000, Ruan Bonan wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the discussion, it appears that the root cause might involve
> > > > specific printk or BPF operations in the given context. To clarify and
> > > > possibly avoid similar issues in the future, are there guidelines or
> > > > best practices for writing BPF programs/hooks that interact with
> > > > tracepoints, especially those related to scheduler events, to prevent
> > > > such deadlocks?
> > >
> > > The general guideline and recommendation for all tracepoints is to be
> > > wait-free. Typically all tracer code should be.
> > >
> > > Now, BPF (users) (ab)uses tracepoints to do all sorts and takes certain
> > > liberties with them, but it is very much at the discretion of the BPF
> > > user.
> >
> > We do assume that tracepoints are just like kprobes and can run in
> > NMI. And in this case BPF is just a vehicle to trigger a
> > promised-to-be-wait-free strncpy_from_user_nofault(). That's as far as
> > BPF involvement goes, we should stop discussing BPF in this context,
> > it's misleading.
> >
> Given known issue, syzbot should run without bpf enabled before it is fixed
> to avoid more useless discussing and misleading.

If you cared to read the thread it would have been obvious
that printk is the culprit. Tell syzbot to run without printk?