netdev - Re: Fwd: [rhashtable] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:570 mutex_lock

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]

Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:28:47 +0000
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc:	Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkp@...org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [rhashtable] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10 at
 kernel/locking/mutex.c:570 mutex_lock_nested()

On 01/13/15 at 11:14am, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> wrote:
> > I can't reproduce it in my KVM box either so far. It looks like a
> > mutex_lock() on an uninitialized mutex or use after free but I can't
> > find such a code path so far.
> 
> Couldn't that be the delayed work is still running after rhashtable
> is destroyed by its caller? I mean, cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> should be called in rhashtable_destroy()?
> 
> Of course, it may be caller's responsibility to ensure that, I haven't
> looked into it that much.

Yes, we came to the very same conclusion in a different email thread
and found the offending race condition.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html