Описание
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd
Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa's suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on "struct p9_client"->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().
Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c's lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c's protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c's protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport's state machine)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd
Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa's suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on "struct p9_client"->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().
Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c's lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c's protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c's protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport's state machine)
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa's suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on "struct p9_client"->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock(). Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c's lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c's protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c's protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport's state machine)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa's suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on "struct p9_client"->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock(). Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c's lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c's protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c's protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport's state machine)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa's suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on "struct p9_client"->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock(). Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c's lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c's protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c's protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport's state machine)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: n ...