From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F10EC433EF for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 17:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KzfKZ3g9Wz3cG9 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 03:44:18 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=v5VORm6y; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KzfJk4kHMz3bxk for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 03:43:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) by gandalf.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KzfJh6Pvxz4ySd for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 03:43:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: by gandalf.ozlabs.org (Postfix) id 4KzfJh6LL3z4xTX; Fri, 13 May 2022 03:43:32 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: gandalf.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org (client-ip=2607:7c80:54:e::133; helo=bombadil.infradead.org; envelope-from=mcgrof@infradead.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: gandalf.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=v5VORm6y; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by gandalf.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KzfJh6Dj4z4xR7; Fri, 13 May 2022 03:43:28 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=GDncwLKphn/XZKopA1l8aEKODmu6Bj+8jDWkzig0Mlc=; b=v5VORm6ydKBJVYTVx2qzPm0X4n YQfDJBSgMcZYJuWgHmve2wHpzkb0hCvcXqAo7doJHNBfw7BwNSzleBoKEu3ZRjnsyEO8TmQseSYpr jr6EOX90POYPE6pFppucFilLWH3RLL3yef5L5pSGRsAOvN7Wr6z/XSKq2UXVdUq4w4/JS2Ho1+eK1 YNvheGtOLSp8qWZsMMcHYnt8JKjGs2Xjk51K8yQrNQxUqezHKSoAhP8aCL8XnptqeifSCgzwREEdH NK4AimkTNmKo7O8d4Eq1S7YBMIwMHCw+jzLHNDyN8/AcO44bQ3FuND+JbHuJ6xsqZWnyc3vTkbeb1 fKhOzEKA==; Received: from mcgrof by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1npCqT-00D1fT-5d; Thu, 12 May 2022 17:43:25 +0000 Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 10:43:25 -0700 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: request_module DoS Message-ID: References: <874k1zt0ec.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <871qwz8aot.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <87v8ub6jk1.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87v8ub6jk1.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Herbert Xu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, fnovak@us.ibm.com, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:07:26PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michael Ellerman writes: > > Luis Chamberlain writes: > ... > > > >> Can someone try this on ppc64le system? At this point I am not convinced > >> this issue is generic. > > > > Does your x86 system have at least 784 CPUs? > > > > I don't know where the original report came from, but the trace shows > > "CPU 784", which would usually indicate a system with at least that many > > CPUs. > > Update, apparently the report originally came from IBM, so I'll chase it > up internally. > > I think you're right that there's probably no issue in the module code, > sorry to waste your time. It gives me testing happiness to know that may be the case :) Luis