[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210126104734.GB80448@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:47:34 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Preemptible idr_alloc() in QRTR code
Hi,
When fuzzing arm64 with Syzkaller, I'm seeing some splats where
this_cpu_ptr() is used in the bowels of idr_alloc(), by way of
radix_tree_node_alloc(), in a preemptible context:
| BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: syz-executor.1/32582
| caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x24/0x30
| CPU: 3 PID: 32582 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.11.0-rc4-next-20210125-00001-gf57e7edf910d #3
| Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
| Call trace:
| dump_backtrace+0x0/0x4a8
| show_stack+0x34/0x88
| dump_stack+0x1d4/0x2a0
| check_preemption_disabled+0x1b8/0x210
| debug_smp_processor_id+0x24/0x30
| radix_tree_node_alloc.constprop.17+0x26c/0x3d0
| radix_tree_extend+0x200/0x420
| idr_get_free+0x63c/0xa38
| idr_alloc_u32+0x164/0x2a0
| __qrtr_bind.isra.8+0x350/0x658
| qrtr_bind+0x18c/0x218
| __sys_bind+0x1fc/0x238
| __arm64_sys_bind+0x78/0xb0
| el0_svc_common+0x1ac/0x4c8
| do_el0_svc+0xfc/0x150
| el0_svc+0x24/0x38
| el0_sync_handler+0x134/0x180
| el0_sync+0x154/0x180
It's not clear to me whether this is a bug in the caller or a bug the
implementation of idr_alloc(). The kerneldoc for idr_alloc() mentions
that callers must provide their own locking (and in this case a mutex is
used), but doesn't mention that preemption must be disabled.
Is this an intentional requirement that's simply missing from the
documentation and requires a change to the QRTR code, or is this
something to fix within the bowels of idr_alloc() and its callees?
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists