linux-kernel - Re: Kernel WARNING (RCU) with btnxpuart on TI AM62 platform

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: <Z_eVEKQn04-2nhpL@gaggiata.pivistrello.it>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 11:53:20 +0200
From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Amitkumar Karwar <amitkumar.karwar@....com>,
	Neeraj Kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@....com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING (RCU) with btnxpuart on TI AM62 platform

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 08:34:23AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Am 10.04.25 um 08:20 schrieb Francesco Dolcini:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 09:15:26PM +0530, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> > > On 08/04/25 14:05, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > > > I do have the following kernel warning with 6.15-rc1, on a TI AM62
> > > > platform (arm64), single CPU core, using btnxpuart driver, any idea?
> > > > PREEMPT_RT is enabled, if it matters.
> > > > 
> > > > Either the issue is not systematic, or multi cores SoCs are not affected
> > > > (no error on the exact same image on a dual nor on quad core TI AM62).

...

> CVE-2024-26959 [1] has the same trace, and supposedly was fixed by Marcel’s
> commit 664130c0b030 (Bluetooth: btnxpuart: Fix btnxpuart_close) present
> since v6.9-rc1, that is also signed off by you.

It seems that the conclusion at that time was just wrong, the real issue seems
what Vignesh suggested.

Francesco