[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C0A907BA-9C0D-4124-A2AF-3748055DB062@holtmann.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:06:18 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@...il.com>
Cc: linux-bluetooth <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
syzbot+dd768a260f7358adbaf9@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: fix "list_add double add" in
hci_conn_complete_evt
Hi Coiby,
> When two HCI_EV_CONN_COMPLETE event packets with status=0 of the same
> HCI connection are received, device_add would be called twice which
> leads to kobject_add being called twice. Thus duplicate
> (struct hci_conn *conn)->dev.kobj.entry would be inserted into
> (struct hci_conn *conn)->dev.kobj.kset->list.
>
> This issue can be fixed by checking (struct hci_conn *conn)->debugfs.
> If it's not NULL, it means the HCI connection has been completed and we
> won't duplicate the work as for processing the first
> HCI_EV_CONN_COMPLETE event.
do you have a btmon trace for this happening?
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+dd768a260f7358adbaf9@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=dd768a260f7358adbaf9
> Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@...il.com>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/hci_event.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> index 4b7fc430793c..1233739ce760 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> @@ -2605,6 +2605,11 @@ static void hci_conn_complete_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> }
>
> if (!ev->status) {
> + if (conn->debugfs) {
> + bt_dev_err(hdev, "The connection has been completed");
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
And instead of doing papering over a hole, I would rather detect that the HCI event is not valid since we already received one for this connection.
Regards
Marcel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists