On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:50 AM syzbot <syzbot+5fa07e4e18e4eb1ccb12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > syzbot found the following crash on: > > HEAD commit: f97c81dc Merge tag 'armsoc-late' of git://git.kernel.org/p.. > git tree: upstream > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=127b709d600000 > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=10283c2b00ab4cd7 > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=5fa07e4e18e4eb1ccb12 > compiler: gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental) > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=12996841600000 > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit: > Reported-by: syzbot+5fa07e4e18e4eb1ccb12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10315 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:840 > look_up_lock_class kernel/locking/lockdep.c:840 [inline] > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10315 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:840 > register_lock_class+0x206/0x1850 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1185 > Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ... > CPU: 0 PID: 10315 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.3.0+ #0 > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS > Google 01/01/2011 > Call Trace: > __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline] > dump_stack+0x172/0x1f0 lib/dump_stack.c:113 > panic+0x2dc/0x755 kernel/panic.c:219 > __warn.cold+0x20/0x4c kernel/panic.c:576 > report_bug+0x263/0x2b0 lib/bug.c:186 > fixup_bug arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:179 [inline] > fixup_bug arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:174 [inline] > do_error_trap+0x11b/0x200 arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:272 > do_invalid_op+0x37/0x50 arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:291 > invalid_op+0x23/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:1028 > RIP: 0010:look_up_lock_class kernel/locking/lockdep.c:840 [inline] > RIP: 0010:register_lock_class+0x206/0x1850 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1185 > Code: fc ff df 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 80 3c 02 00 0f 85 aa 10 00 00 4c 3b 7b > 18 44 8b 35 d5 de 55 09 74 0b 48 81 3b a0 65 06 8a 74 02 <0f> 0b 45 85 ed > 0f 84 71 03 00 00 f6 85 70 ff ff ff 01 0f 85 64 03 > RSP: 0018:ffff888096777a48 EFLAGS: 00010002 > RAX: dffffc0000000000 RBX: ffff888093ff78e0 RCX: 0000000000000000 > RDX: 1ffff110127fef1f RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff888093ff78f8 > RBP: ffff888096777b10 R08: 1ffff11012ceef51 R09: ffffffff8aaea0e0 > R10: ffffffff8a7753c8 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffff8a7b5d20 > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffffff884766e0 > __lock_acquire+0xf4/0x4e70 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3837 > lock_acquire+0x190/0x410 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4487 > __raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:135 [inline] > _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x33/0x50 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:175 > spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:343 [inline] > lock_sock_nested+0x41/0x120 net/core/sock.c:2929 > lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1522 [inline] > selinux_netlbl_socket_connect+0x20/0xc0 security/selinux/netlabel.c:607 > selinux_socket_connect+0x6a/0x90 security/selinux/hooks.c:4745 > security_socket_connect+0x77/0xc0 security/security.c:1958 > __sys_connect+0x19d/0x330 net/socket.c:1824 > __do_sys_connect net/socket.c:1839 [inline] > __se_sys_connect net/socket.c:1836 [inline] > __x64_sys_connect+0x73/0xb0 net/socket.c:1836 > do_syscall_64+0xfa/0x760 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe > RIP: 0033:0x459a09 > Code: fd b7 fb ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 90 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 > 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff > ff 0f 83 cb b7 fb ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 > RSP: 002b:00007fc302ec5c78 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002a > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 0000000000459a09 > RDX: 000000000000001c RSI: 0000000020000080 RDI: 0000000000000005 > RBP: 000000000075bf20 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fc302ec66d4 > R13: 00000000004bff42 R14: 00000000004d1eb0 R15: 00000000ffffffff > Kernel Offset: disabled > Rebooting in 86400 seconds.. This doesn't appear to be related to selinux_netlbl_socket_connect(); I believe it should be okay to call lock_sock() in that context. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
