On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 07:37:37AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年09月28日 01:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:22:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
> > > lead to use after free since
On 2018年09月28日 01:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:22:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
lead to use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
pointer at the same time.
Fix this by holding the
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:22:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
> lead to use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
> pointer at the same time.
>
> Fix this by holding the lock during the access.
>
> Reported-by:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:22:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
> lead to use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
> pointer at the same time.
>
> Fix this by holding the lock during the access.
>
> Reported-by:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > So if the TSC on CPU1 is slightly behind the TSC on CPU0 then now1 can be
> > smaller than cycle_last. The TSC sync stuff does not catch the small delta
> > for unknown raisins. I'll go and find that
> On Sep 27, 2018, at 7:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Do we do better if we use
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> Do we do better if we use signed arithmetic for the whole calculation?
> > >> Then a small
On 2018年09月27日 17:52, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello!
On 9/27/2018 11:43 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
Just a couple of typos...
The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
lead use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
Lead to use.
pointer at the
The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
lead to use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
pointer at the same time.
Fix this by holding the lock during the access.
Reported-by: syzbot+e3e074963495f92a8...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 16320f363ae1
Hello!
On 9/27/2018 11:43 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
Just a couple of typos...
The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
lead use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
Lead to use.
pointer at the same time.
Fix this by holding the lock during
The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
lead use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
pointer at the same time.
Fix this by holding the lock during the acess.
Reported-by: syzbot+e3e074963495f92a8...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 16320f363ae1
11 matches
Mail list logo
