On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 07:22 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> > The first bot that picked this up started spewing:
>> >
>> > BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#1, syz-executor2/9452
>>
>> Yes. Th
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:32 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 15:11 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Cong Wang
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
>> > > w
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 07:22 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > The first bot that picked this up started spewing:
> >
> > BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#1, syz-executor2/9452
>
> Yes. The bug is not about locking the listener, but protecting fiel
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 15:11 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've got the following error report while fuzzing the kernel with
> >> syzkaller.
> >>
> >> On commit
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> The first bot that picked this up started spewing:
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#1, syz-executor2/9452
Yes. The bug is not about locking the listener, but protecting fields
of struct dccp_request_sock
I will provide a patch, once I reac
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 16:06 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Something that compiles is definitely better :)
> Reapplied.
Just to be clear : This is not the proper patch. This only reduces the
race.
bh_lock_sock() does not prevent a user process from owning the socket.
We need another protection,
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:32 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 15:11 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Cong Wang
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
> > > wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I've got the following error
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I've got the following error report while fuzzing the kernel with
>> >> syzkaller.
>> >>
>> >> On commit 926af6273fc683cd98cd0ce7bf0d04a02eed6742.
>> >>
>
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:32 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 15:11 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Cong Wang
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've got the following error report while fuzzing the kernel with syzkaller.
>>>
>>> On commit 926af6273fc683c
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've got the following error report while fuzzing the kernel with syzkaller.
>>
>> On commit 926af6273fc683cd98cd0ce7bf0d04a02eed6742.
>>
>> A reproducer and .config are a
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Andrey Konovalov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got the following error report while fuzzing the kernel with syzkaller.
>
> On commit 926af6273fc683cd98cd0ce7bf0d04a02eed6742.
>
> A reproducer and .config are attached.
> Note, that it takes quite some time to trigger the b
12 matches
Mail list logo
