Re: [PATCH V2 09/10] kasan: Prevent deadlock in kasan reporting

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 2015-08-26 11:26 GMT+03:00 Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> We we end up calling kasan_report in real mode, our shadow mapping
>> for even spinlock variable will show poisoned.
>
> Generally I agree with this patch. We should disable reports when we
> print report as early
> as possible to prevent recursion in case of bug in spinlock or printk etc.
>
> But I don't understand what is the problem that you observing.
> How we ended up with shadow poisoned for a valid spinlock struct?
> And since  shadow poisoned for some valid memory we should get
> enormous amount of false positive reports.
>

I still haven't fully isolated all the .c files which should not be
kasan instrumented. That means in case of ppc64 i ended up calling
kasan _load/_store in real mode. That will result in failure w.r.t
to the above spin_lock code.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/