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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231017170900.62f951cd@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:09:00 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Eric Wheeler <netdev@...ts.ewheeler.net> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: BUG: looking up invalid subclass: 8 On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Eric Wheeler wrote: > I found a similar backtrace that was fixed in > 3510c7aa069aa83a2de6dab2b41401a198317bdc . It was for ALSA, but had the > same BUG of "looking up invalid subclass: 8" and the fix was trivial, > noting that MAX_HOPS shouldn't be bigger than MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES. > > Is there a simple fix for this in netlink, too? > > ]# ./scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh vmlinux `pwd` < stackdump.txt > [ 113.347055] BUG: looking up invalid subclass: 8 > [ 113.357387] turning off the locking correctness validator. > [ 113.364842] Hardware name: Supermicro Super Server/H11SSL-i, BIOS 2.4 12/27/2021 > [ 113.373614] Call Trace: > [ 113.381874] <TASK> > [ 113.382556] dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:108) > [ 113.388816] look_up_lock_class (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:941) > [ 113.399562] register_lock_class (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1284 (discriminator 13)) > [ 113.400238] ? srso_return_thunk (arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S:308) > [ 113.403627] __lock_acquire (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5014) > [ 113.414652] lock_acquire.part.0 (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:467 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5755) > [ 113.428619] ? srso_return_thunk (arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S:308) > [ 113.435463] ? lock_acquire (./include/trace/events/lock.h:24 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5724) > [ 113.440620] _raw_spin_lock_nested (kernel/locking/spinlock.c:379) > [ 113.462749] ? __nla_validate_parse (lib/nlattr.c:606) > [ 113.471052] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit.isra.0 (net/netlink/genetlink.c:970) > [ 113.471651] genl_family_rcv_msg (net/netlink/genetlink.c:1050) Thanks for sharing the decoded stack trace, can you share the full non-decoded one? Is there the name of the command that's calling this somewhere? There's no lock where this is pointing at, just an indirect call. So I wonder where the lock is. Perhaps retpoline is confusing the stack trace :(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists