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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:32:10 -0800 From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> Cc: syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...ia.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, stephen hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: net: deadlock on genl_mutex On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote: > Chain exists of: > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(genl_mutex); > lock(nlk->cb_mutex); > lock(genl_mutex); > lock(rtnl_mutex); > > *** DEADLOCK *** This one looks legitimate, because nlk->cb_mutex could be rtnl_mutex. Let me think about it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists