[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGxU2F7XjdKgdKwfZMT-sdJ+JK10p_2zNdaQeGBwm3jpEe1Xaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:06:21 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: syzbot <syzbot+befff0a9536049e7902e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Krasnov Arseniy <oxffffaa@...il.com>,
Krasnov Arseniy Vladimirovich <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [kvm?] [net?] [virt?] general protection fault in
virtio_transport_purge_skbs
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:55 AM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:31 AM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bobby,
> > can you take a look at this report?
> >
> > It seems related to the changes we made to support skbuff.
>
> Could it be a problem of concurrent access to pkt_queue ?
>
> IIUC we should hold pkt_queue.lock when we call skb_queue_splice_init()
> and remove pkt_list_lock. (or hold pkt_list_lock when calling
> virtio_transport_purge_skbs, but pkt_list_lock seems useless now that
> we use skbuff)
>
In the previous patch was missing a hunk, new one attached:
#syz test https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git fff5a5e7f528
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
struct vsock_loopback {
struct workqueue_struct *workqueue;
- spinlock_t pkt_list_lock; /* protects pkt_list */
struct sk_buff_head pkt_queue;
struct work_struct pkt_work;
};
@@ -32,9 +31,7 @@ static int vsock_loopback_send_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb)
struct vsock_loopback *vsock = &the_vsock_loopback;
int len = skb->len;
- spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
skb_queue_tail(&vsock->pkt_queue, skb);
- spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
queue_work(vsock->workqueue, &vsock->pkt_work);
@@ -113,9 +110,9 @@ static void vsock_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work)
skb_queue_head_init(&pkts);
- spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_queue.lock);
skb_queue_splice_init(&vsock->pkt_queue, &pkts);
- spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_queue.lock);
while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&pkts))) {
virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(skb);
@@ -132,7 +129,6 @@ static int __init vsock_loopback_init(void)
if (!vsock->workqueue)
return -ENOMEM;
- spin_lock_init(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
skb_queue_head_init(&vsock->pkt_queue);
INIT_WORK(&vsock->pkt_work, vsock_loopback_work);
@@ -156,9 +152,7 @@ static void __exit vsock_loopback_exit(void)
flush_work(&vsock->pkt_work);
- spin_lock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
virtio_vsock_skb_queue_purge(&vsock->pkt_queue);
- spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->pkt_list_lock);
destroy_workqueue(vsock->workqueue);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists