On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ozgur <oz...@goosey.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 27.12.2017, 23:14, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyu...@google.com>:
>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Ozgur <oz...@goosey.org> wrote:
>>>> 27.12.2017, 22:21, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyu...@google.com>:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Did you try the patch I posted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Hello Dmitry,
>>>>
>>>>> No. And I didn't know I need to. Why?
>>>>> If you think the patch needs additional testing, you can ask syzbot to
>>>>> test it. See
>>>>> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#communication-with-syzbot
>>>>> Otherwise proceed with committing it. Or what are we waiting for?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to fixed patch for crash, in fact check to patch code and
>>>> test solve the bug.
>>>> How do test it because there is no patch in the following bug?
>>>
>>> Hi Ozgur,
>>>
>>> I am not sure I completely understand what you mean. But the
>>> reproducer for this bug (which one can use for testing) is here:
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/syzkaller-bugs/Kxs05ziCpgY
>>> Tom also mentions there is some patch for this, but I don't know where
>>> it is, it doesn't seem to be referenced from this thread.
>>
>> Hello Dmitry,
>>
>> Ah, I'm sorry I don't seen Tom mail and I don't have a patch not tested :)
>> I think Tom send patch to only you and are you tested?
>>
>> kcmsock.c will change and strp_data_ready I think locked.
>>
>> Tom, please send a patch for me? I can test and inform you.
>>
> Hi Ozgur,
>
> I reposted the patches as RFC "kcm: Fix lockdep issue". Please test if you
> can!
OK, I will work as your typist this time:
#syz test: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
master
But I wonder what part of the following you don't understand? Do we
need to improve wording or something?
> If you think the patch needs additional testing, you can ask syzbot to test
> it.
> See
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#communication-with-syzbot
Also I don't know what git repo/branch you have in mind. Kernel
patches don't generally apply just to any tree. Fingers crossed that I
guessed correctly and it will apply.
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 9155da422692..7a7b14e9628a 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1514,6 +1514,11 @@ static inline bool sock_owned_by_user(const struct sock *sk)
return sk->sk_lock.owned;
}
+static inline bool sock_owned_by_user_nocheck(const struct sock *sk)
+{
+ return sk->sk_lock.owned;
+}
+
/* no reclassification while locks are held */
static inline bool sock_allow_reclassification(const struct sock *csk)
{
diff --git a/net/strparser/strparser.c b/net/strparser/strparser.c
index c5fda15ba319..1fdab5c4eda8 100644
--- a/net/strparser/strparser.c
+++ b/net/strparser/strparser.c
@@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ void strp_data_ready(struct strparser *strp)
* allows a thread in BH context to safely check if the process
* lock is held. In this case, if the lock is held, queue work.
*/
- if (sock_owned_by_user(strp->sk)) {
+ if (sock_owned_by_user_nocheck(strp->sk)) {
queue_work(strp_wq, &strp->work);
return;
}
