Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:31:07 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add kernel config option for fuzz testing.
Message-ID: <20200313083107.GV12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200307135822.3894-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <6f2e27de-c820-7de3-447d-cd9f7c650add@suse.com>
 <20200308065258.GE3983392@kroah.com>
 <3e9f47f7-a6c1-7cec-a84f-e621ae5426be@suse.com>
 <CACT4Y+a6KExbggs4mg8pvoD554PcDqQNW4sM15X-tc=YONCzYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200311101115.53139149@gandalf.local.home>
 <CACT4Y+Z5co4HyQBj6-uUdqT2Vk=6jgT-aQXuPtjx3qV4C_pZ7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7e0d2bbf-71c2-395c-9a42-d3d6d3ee4fa4@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20200312182935.70ed6516@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200312182935.70ed6516@gandalf.local.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 06:29:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > @@ -705,10 +706,12 @@ static void lockdep_print_held_locks(struct task_struct *p)
> >  	 * It's not reliable to print a task's held locks if it's not sleeping
> >  	 * and it's not the current task.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (p->state == TASK_RUNNING && p != current)
> > -		return;
> > +	unreliable = p->state == TASK_RUNNING && p != current;
> >  	for (i = 0; i < depth; i++) {
> > -		printk(" #%d: ", i);
> > +		if (unreliable)
> > +			printk(" #%d?: ", i);
> > +		else
> > +			printk(" #%d: ", i);
> 
> Have you tried submitting this? Has Peter nacked it?

It has definite UaF potential... do we have a boot parameter that
signals the willingness to trade safetly for more debug output?

Over all, the risk of this going *bang* is quite low I think.