Re: Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 11:40:06 -0700
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>, bpf <bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hsin-Wei Hung <hsinweih@xxxxxxx>, Ardalan Amiri Sani <ardalan@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <CAPPBnEa1_pZ6W24+WwtcNFvTUHTHO7KUmzEbOcMqxp+m2o15qQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:37 AM Priya Bala Govindasamy <pgovind2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> SEC("kprobe/__pcpu_freelist_pop+0x58c")

We should disallow such recursion in the verifier.
All these "bugs" are hard to prioritize as bugs.
When people shot themselves in the foot there will be pain.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop
  - From: Cong Wang

References:
- Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop
  - From: Priya Bala Govindasamy

Prev by Date: Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/10] Local vmtest enhancement and RV64 enabled
Previous by thread: Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop
Next by thread: Re: Possible deadlock in pcpu_freelist_pop
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Samsung SoC] [Linux Rockchip SoC] [Linux Actions SoC] [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors] [Linux NFS] [Linux NILFS] [Linux USB Devel] [Video for Linux] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite News] [Linux Kernel] [Linux SCSI]

Powered by Linux