On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Eric Biggers <ebigge...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:55:00AM -0800, syzbot wrote: >>> Call Trace: >>> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:17 [inline] >>> dump_stack+0x194/0x257 lib/dump_stack.c:53 >>> ___might_sleep+0x2b2/0x470 kernel/sched/core.c:6060 >>> __might_sleep+0x95/0x190 kernel/sched/core.c:6013 >>> __do_page_fault+0x350/0xc90 arch/x86/mm/fault.c:1372 >>> do_page_fault+0xee/0x720 arch/x86/mm/fault.c:1504 >>> page_fault+0x22/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:1094 >>> RIP: 0010:virt_to_cache mm/slab.c:400 [inline] >>> RIP: 0010:kfree+0xb2/0x250 mm/slab.c:3802 >>> RSP: 0018:ffff8801cc82f780 EFLAGS: 00010046 >>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8801cc82f948 RCX: ffffffffffffffff >>> RDX: ffffea0007320bc0 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff8801cc82f948 >>> RBP: ffff8801cc82f7a0 R08: ffffed003a54e4dc R09: 0000000000000000 >>> R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffffed003a54e4db R12: 0000000000000286 >>> R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffff8801cc82f948 R15: ffff8801cc82f8b0 >>> blkcipher_walk_done+0x72b/0xde0 crypto/blkcipher.c:139 >>> encrypt+0x50a/0xaf0 crypto/salsa20_generic.c:208 >>> skcipher_crypt_blkcipher crypto/skcipher.c:622 [inline] >>> skcipher_decrypt_blkcipher+0x213/0x310 crypto/skcipher.c:640 >>> crypto_skcipher_decrypt include/crypto/skcipher.h:463 [inline] >>> _skcipher_recvmsg crypto/algif_skcipher.c:144 [inline] >>> skcipher_recvmsg+0xa54/0xf20 crypto/algif_skcipher.c:165 >>> sock_recvmsg_nosec net/socket.c:805 [inline] >>> sock_recvmsg+0xc9/0x110 net/socket.c:812 >>> ___sys_recvmsg+0x29b/0x630 net/socket.c:2207 >>> __sys_recvmsg+0xe2/0x210 net/socket.c:2252 >>> SYSC_recvmsg net/socket.c:2264 [inline] >>> SyS_recvmsg+0x2d/0x50 net/socket.c:2259 >>> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0x96 >> >> Yet another duplicate of the Salsa20 bug: >> >> #syz dup: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage (3) >> >> Looks like this one was incorrectly attributed to x86 rather than crypto? > > +Andrey, please check why syzbot has attributed this to x86.
Addressed in https://github.com/google/syzkaller/pull/465 > >> kfree() is being called with preempt_count corrupted *and* with an >> uninitialized >> pointer, so it can cause quite a few different problems... > > Yeah, it's a bad one. Hopefully fixes will start to propagate soon.
