On 5/1/24 2:50 AM, Hillf Danton wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2024 02:01:20 -0400 Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> >> >> and then it failed testing. >> > So did my patch [1] but then the reason was spotted [2,3] > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240430110209.4310-1-hdan...@sina.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240430225005.4368-1-hdan...@sina.com/ > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/000000000000a7f8470617589...@google.com/
Just to make sure I understand the conclusion. Edward's patch that just swaps the order of the calls: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/tencent_546da49414e876eebecf2c78d26d242ee...@qq.com/ fixes the UAF. I tested the same in my setup. However, when you guys tested it with sysbot, it also triggered a softirq/RCU warning. The softirq/RCU part of the issue is fixed with this commit: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240427102808.29356-1-qiang.zhang1...@gmail.com/ commit 1dd1eff161bd55968d3d46bc36def62d71fb4785 Author: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1...@gmail.com> Date: Sat Apr 27 18:28:08 2024 +0800 softirq: Fix suspicious RCU usage in __do_softirq() The problem was that I was testing with -next master which has that patch. It looks like you guys were testing against bb7a2467e6be which didn't have the patch, and so that's why you guys still hit the softirq/RCU issue. Later when you added that patch to your patch, it worked with syzbot. So is it safe to assume that the softirq/RCU patch above will be upstream when the vhost changes go in or is there a tag I need to add to my patches?
