[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200908233329.200473-1-anant.thazhemadam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 05:03:28 +0530
From: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@...il.com>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@...il.com>,
syzbot+c613e88b3093ebf3686e@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+d0f27d9af17914bf253b@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+3025b9294f8cb0ede850@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+0f84f6eed90503da72fc@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] net: qrtr: Reintroduce ARCH_QCOM as a dependency for QRTR
Removing ARCH_QCOM, as a dependency for QRTR begins to give rise to
issues with respect to maintaining reference count integrity and
suspicious rcu usage.
The bugs resolved by making QRTR dependent on ARCH_QCOM include:
* WARNING: refcount bug in qrtr_node_lookup
Reported-by: syzbot+c613e88b3093ebf3686e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
* WARNING: refcount bug in qrtr_recvmsg
Reported-by: syzbot+d0f27d9af17914bf253b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
* WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in ctrl_cmd_new_lookup
Reported-by: syzbot+3025b9294f8cb0ede850@...kaller.appspotmail.com
* WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in qrtr_ns_worker
Reported-by: syzbot+0f84f6eed90503da72fc@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@...il.com>
---
As I understand it, QRTR was initially dependent upon ARCH_QCOM, but was
removed since not all modems using IPC Router protocol required the
support provided for Qualcomm platforms.
However, wouldn't ARCH_QCOM be required by the modems that require the
support provided for Qualcomm platforms?
The configuration ARCH_QCOM isn't exactly the easiest to find, especially,
for those who don't know what they're looking for (syzbot included, I
guess).
I don't feel like the tradeoff of not depending on ARCH_QCOM over giving
rise to potential bugs is worth it.
Is NOT having QRTR depend on ARCH_QCOM so critical that it supersedes the
priority of not giving rise to potential bugs?
net/qrtr/Kconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/net/qrtr/Kconfig b/net/qrtr/Kconfig
index b4020b84760f..8156d0f3656b 100644
--- a/net/qrtr/Kconfig
+++ b/net/qrtr/Kconfig
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
config QRTR
tristate "Qualcomm IPC Router support"
+ depends on ARCH_QCOM
help
Say Y if you intend to use Qualcomm IPC router protocol. The
protocol is used to communicate with services provided by other
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists