[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45dd8b7c-584d-40dc-342a-6d894e0e68c8@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:06:07 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
amit karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>, andreyknvl@...gle.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB Mailing List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
syzbot+dc4127f950da51639216@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
syzbot <syzbot+373e6719b49912399d21@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: don't call del_timer_sync() on uninitialized
timer
Ganapathi, how do you want to fix this bug?
On 2020/07/29 3:45, Brian Norris wrote:
>> syzbot is reporting that del_timer_sync() is called from
>> mwifiex_usb_cleanup_tx_aggr() from mwifiex_unregister_dev() without
>> checking timer_setup() from mwifiex_usb_tx_init() was called [1].
>> Since mwifiex_usb_prepare_tx_aggr_skb() is calling del_timer() if
>> is_hold_timer_set == true, use the same condition for del_timer_sync().
>>
>> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=fdeef9cf7348be8b8ab5b847f2ed993aba8ea7b6
>>
>> Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+373e6719b49912399d21@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
>> Cc: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
>> ---
>> A patch from Ganapathi Bhat ( https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10990275/ ) is stalling
>> at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/MN2PR18MB2637D7C742BC235FE38367F0A09C0@MN2PR18MB2637.namprd18.prod.outlook.com/ .
>> syzbot by now got this report for 10000 times. Do we want to go with this simple patch?
>
> Sorry, that stall is partly my fault, and partly Ganapathi's. It
> doesn't help that it took him 4 months to reply to my questions, so I
> completely lost even the tiny bit of context I had managed to build up
> in my head at initial review time... and so it's still buried in the
> dark corners of my inbox. (I think I'll go archive that now, because
> it really deserves a better sell than it had initially, if Ganapathi
> really wants to land it.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists