linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.18 083/121] sctp: fix recursive locking warning in sctp_do

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180411183501.265341602@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:36:26 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.18 083/121] sctp: fix recursive locking warning in sctp_do_peeloff

3.18-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>


[ Upstream commit 6dfe4b97e08ec3d1a593fdaca099f0ef0a3a19e6 ]

Dmitry got the following recursive locking report while running syzkaller
fuzzer, the Call Trace:
 __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:16 [inline]
 dump_stack+0x2ee/0x3ef lib/dump_stack.c:52
 print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1729 [inline]
 check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1773 [inline]
 validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2251 [inline]
 __lock_acquire+0xef2/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
 lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3755
 lock_sock_nested+0xcb/0x120 net/core/sock.c:2536
 lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1460 [inline]
 sctp_close+0xcd/0x9d0 net/sctp/socket.c:1497
 inet_release+0xed/0x1c0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:425
 inet6_release+0x50/0x70 net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:432
 sock_release+0x8d/0x1e0 net/socket.c:597
 __sock_create+0x38b/0x870 net/socket.c:1226
 sock_create+0x7f/0xa0 net/socket.c:1237
 sctp_do_peeloff+0x1a2/0x440 net/sctp/socket.c:4879
 sctp_getsockopt_peeloff net/sctp/socket.c:4914 [inline]
 sctp_getsockopt+0x111a/0x67e0 net/sctp/socket.c:6628
 sock_common_getsockopt+0x95/0xd0 net/core/sock.c:2690
 SYSC_getsockopt net/socket.c:1817 [inline]
 SyS_getsockopt+0x240/0x380 net/socket.c:1799
 entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xc2

This warning is caused by the lock held by sctp_getsockopt() is on one
socket, while the other lock that sctp_close() is getting later is on
the newly created (which failed) socket during peeloff operation.

This patch is to avoid this warning by use lock_sock with subclass
SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING as Wang Cong and Marcelo's suggestion.

Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Suggested-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 net/sctp/socket.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/net/sctp/socket.c
+++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
@@ -1513,7 +1513,7 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk,
 
 	pr_debug("%s: sk:%p, timeout:%ld\n", __func__, sk, timeout);
 
-	lock_sock(sk);
+	lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 	sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
 	sk->sk_state = SCTP_SS_CLOSING;
 
@@ -1564,7 +1564,7 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk,
 	 * held and that should be grabbed before socket lock.
 	 */
 	spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
-	bh_lock_sock(sk);
+	bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
 
 	/* Hold the sock, since sk_common_release() will put sock_put()
 	 * and we have just a little more cleanup.