On 09/28/2017 04:45 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 09/28/2017 01:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi,
While fuzzing v4.14-rc2 with Syzkaller, I found it was possible to trigger the
warning at mm/percpu.c:1361, on both arm64 and x86_64.
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:45:38PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Perhaps the pr_warn() should be ratelimited; or could there be an
> > option where we only return NULL, not triggering a warn at all (which
> > would likely be what callers might do anyway when checking against
> >
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:27:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> index 59d44d6..f731c45 100644
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -1355,8 +1355,13 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t
> align, bool reserved,
>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 01:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While fuzzing v4.14-rc2 with Syzkaller, I found it was possible to trigger
> >the
> >warning at mm/percpu.c:1361, on both arm64 and x86_64. This appears to
> >require
>
On 09/28/2017 01:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi,
While fuzzing v4.14-rc2 with Syzkaller, I found it was possible to trigger the
warning at mm/percpu.c:1361, on both arm64 and x86_64. This appears to require
increasing RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, so to the best of my knowledge this cannot be
triggered by an
