netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add lockdep asserts to ____napi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 18:41:18 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add lockdep asserts to ____napi_schedule().

Hey Jakub,

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:59 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:19:45 -0600 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > In your case it is "okay" since that ptr_ring_consume_bh() will do BH
> > > disable/enable which forces the softirq to run. It is not obvious.
> >
> > In that case, isn't the lockdep assertion you added wrong and should
> > be reverted? If correct code is hitting it, something seems wrong...
>
> FWIW I'd lean towards revert as well, I can't think of a simple
> fix that won't require work arounds in callers.

I just got an email from syzbot about this too:
https://lore.kernel.org/wireguard/0000000000000eaff805da869d5b@google.com/

And no word from Sebastian, and now it's the weekend, so I suspect
you're probably right. I'll send in a revert.

Jason