netdev - Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in skb_array

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: <2ccb37fe-44f2-4d78-3cf7-bb1676a1016b@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:13:55 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected in
 skb_array_produce



On 2017年02月09日 18:49, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>  wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've got the following report while running syzkaller fuzzer on mmotm
>>> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git)
>>> remotes/mmotm/auto-latest ee4ba7533626ba7bf2f8b992266467ac9fdc045e:
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>
>>>   Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>>>
>>>         CPU0                    CPU1
>>>         ----                    ----
>>>    lock(&(&r->consumer_lock)->rlock);
>>>                                 local_irq_disable();
>>>                                 lock(&(&r->producer_lock)->rlock);
>>>                                 lock(&(&r->consumer_lock)->rlock);
>>>    <Interrupt>
>>>      lock(&(&r->producer_lock)->rlock);
>>>
>> Thanks a lot for the testing.
>>
>> Looks like we could address this by using skb_array_consume_bh() instead.
>>
>> Could you pls verify if the following patch works?
> No, I can't test it, sorry. This happened once on bots. And bots
> currently test only upstream versions.
>
>

No problem, will try to test my self.

Thanks