Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 08:29:52 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, manfred <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, fabf@skynet.be, kernel@kyup.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock
Message-ID: <20161218162952.GB24788@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <CACT4Y+a-MavOOisxqLpQqoje5YthZLtKeg0yqe7UnhVPuO4Pag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161218162838.GA24788@linux-80c1.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161218162838.GA24788@linux-80c1.suse>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 952
Lines: 30

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016, Bueso wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>>[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
>>4.9.0+ #89 Not tainted
>
>Thanks for the report, I can reproduce the issue as of (which I obviously
>should have tested with lockdep):
>
>370b262c896 (ipc/sem: avoid idr tree lookup for interrupted semop)
>
>I need to think more about it this evening, but I believe the issue to be
>the potentially bogus locknum in the unlock path, as we are calling sem_lock
>without updating the variable. I'll send a patch after more testing. This
>fixes it for me:
>
>diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
>index e08b94851922..fba6139e7208 100644
>--- a/ipc/sem.c
>+++ b/ipc/sem.c
>@@ -1977,7 +1977,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
>		}
>
>		rcu_read_lock();
>-		sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
>+	        sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);

*sigh*, that would be:
	         locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);