[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD-N9QWYDUHhG1vRMOCRniHW3vk6VDLmiJmKWC+h_H_23RvEFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:12:19 +0800
From: 慕冬亮 <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
To: davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: "WARNING: locking bug in do_ipv6_setsockopt" should share the same
root cause with "WARNING: locking bug in do_ipv6_getsockopt"
I found that on the syzbot dashboard, “WARNING: locking bug in
do_ipv6_setsockopt”(https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=6a970baf20aa5a64455be86fb920f468def703c6)
and
"WARNING: locking bug in do_ipv6_getsockopt"
(https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=e97be0bf4d30813e951bcc6249e72c592a790164)
should share the same root cause.
The reason for my above statement is that their PoCs have a high
similarity except for the last syscall - "setsockopt vs getsockopt".
In the last syscall, when it invokes lock_sock(sk) and accesses
sk->sk_lock.slock, the WARNING happens.
If you can have any issues with this statement or our information is
useful to you, please let us know. Thanks very much.
--
My best regards to you.
No System Is Safe!
Dongliang Mu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists