Hi Jason,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:29 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 12:39:27AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
>
> > 1 lock held by syz-executor/27959:
> > #0: ffffffff8fcbffc8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_lock net/core/rtnetlink.c:79 [inline]
> > #0: ffffffff8fcbffc8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __rtnl_newlink net/core/rtnetlink.c:3749 [inline]
> > #0: ffffffff8fcbffc8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_newlink+0xab7/0x20a0 net/core/rtnetlink.c:3772
>
> There is really something wrong with the new sykzaller reporting, can
> someone fix it?
>
> The kernel log that shows the programs:
>
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=10d72727980000
>
> Doesn't have the word "newlink"/"new"/"link" etc, and yet there is an
> executor clearly sitting in a newlink netlink callback when we
> crashed.
These are likely coming from the network devices initialization code.
When syzbot spins up a new syz-executor, it creates a lot of
networking devices as one of the first steps.
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/f00eed24f2a1332b07fef1a353a439133978d97b/executor/common_linux.h#L1482
So those syz-executors might have just been unable to start and then
they were abandoned (?)
>
> We need to see the syzkaller programs that are triggering these issues
> to get ideas, and for some reason they are missing now.
Once syzbot manages to find a reproducer, hopefully things will become
more clear.
--
Aleksandr
>
> Jason
>
