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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y365S5s5qRQvm8m0@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:22:35 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@...ich.ibm.com>
Cc:     wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+5e70d01ee8985ae62a3b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, chenzhongjin@...wei.com,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
        Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] unregister_netdevice: waiting for DEV to become free (7)

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 05:45:53PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> But it is the caller's responsibility to destroy it since commit
> dd37d2f59eb8.
> 
> > The causes are as follows:
> > 
> > rdma_listen()
> >   rdma_bind_addr()
> >     cma_acquire_dev_by_src_ip()
> >       cma_attach_to_dev()
> >         _cma_attach_to_dev()
> >           cma_dev_get()
> 
> Thanks for the analysis.
> 
> And for the two callers of cma_listen_on_dev, looks they have
> different behaviors with regard to handling failure.

Yes, the CM is not the problem, and that print from it is unrelated

I patched in netdevice_tracker and get this:

[  237.475070][ T7541] unregister_netdevice: waiting for vlan0 to become free. Usage count = 2
[  237.477311][ T7541] leaked reference.
[  237.478378][ T7541]  ib_device_set_netdev+0x266/0x730
[  237.479848][ T7541]  siw_newlink+0x4e0/0xfd0
[  237.481100][ T7541]  nldev_newlink+0x35c/0x5c0
[  237.482121][ T7541]  rdma_nl_rcv_msg+0x36d/0x690
[  237.483312][ T7541]  rdma_nl_rcv+0x2ee/0x430
[  237.484483][ T7541]  netlink_unicast+0x543/0x7f0
[  237.485746][ T7541]  netlink_sendmsg+0x918/0xe20
[  237.486866][ T7541]  sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120
[  237.488006][ T7541]  ____sys_sendmsg+0x70d/0x8b0
[  237.489294][ T7541]  ___sys_sendmsg+0x11d/0x1b0
[  237.490404][ T7541]  __sys_sendmsg+0xfa/0x1d0
[  237.491451][ T7541]  do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0
[  237.492566][ T7541]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

Which seems to confirm my original prediction, except this is siw not
rxe..

Maybe rxe was the wrong guess, or maybe it is troubled too in other
reports?

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ