linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.10 66/96] vsock/virtio: avoid potential deadlock when vsock device remove

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: <20210816125437.158517633@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:02:16 +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, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Longpeng(Mike)" <longpeng2@...wei.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.10 66/96] vsock/virtio: avoid potential deadlock when vsock device remove

From: Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2@...wei.com>

[ Upstream commit 49b0b6ffe20c5344f4173f3436298782a08da4f2 ]

There's a potential deadlock case when remove the vsock device or
process the RESET event:

  vsock_for_each_connected_socket:
      spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock) ----------- (1)
      ...
          virtio_vsock_reset_sock:
              lock_sock(sk) --------------------- (2)
      ...
      spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock)

lock_sock() may do initiative schedule when the 'sk' is owned by
other thread at the same time, we would receivce a warning message
that "scheduling while atomic".

Even worse, if the next task (selected by the scheduler) try to
release a 'sk', it need to request vsock_table_lock and the deadlock
occur, cause the system into softlockup state.
  Call trace:
   queued_spin_lock_slowpath
   vsock_remove_bound
   vsock_remove_sock
   virtio_transport_release
   __vsock_release
   vsock_release
   __sock_release
   sock_close
   __fput
   ____fput

So we should not require sk_lock in this case, just like the behavior
in vhost_vsock or vmci.

Fixes: 0ea9e1d3a9e3 ("VSOCK: Introduce virtio_transport.ko")
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2@...wei.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210812053056.1699-1-longpeng2@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
index 2700a63ab095..3a056f8affd1 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
@@ -356,11 +356,14 @@ static void virtio_vsock_event_fill(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
 
 static void virtio_vsock_reset_sock(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	lock_sock(sk);
+	/* vmci_transport.c doesn't take sk_lock here either.  At least we're
+	 * under vsock_table_lock so the sock cannot disappear while we're
+	 * executing.
+	 */
+
 	sk->sk_state = TCP_CLOSE;
 	sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;
 	sk->sk_error_report(sk);
-	release_sock(sk);
 }
 
 static void virtio_vsock_update_guest_cid(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
-- 
2.30.2