linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [net?] possible deadlock in rtnl

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: <02634384-2468-4598-b64a-0f558730c925@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:55:05 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 syzbot <syzbot+51cf7cc5f9ffc1006ef2@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
 Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [net?] possible deadlock in rtnl_lock (8)



On 9/9/24 7:44 PM, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 09.09.24 10:02, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 10:12 AM syzbot
>> <syzbot+51cf7cc5f9ffc1006ef2@...kaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
>>>
>>> HEAD commit:    df54f4a16f82 Merge branch 'for-next/core' into 
>>> for-kernelci
>>> git tree: 
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git 
>>> for-kernelci
>>> console output: 
>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12bdabc7980000
>>> kernel config: 
>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=dde5a5ba8d41ee9e
>>> dashboard link: 
>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=51cf7cc5f9ffc1006ef2
>>> compiler:       Debian clang version 15.0.6, GNU ld (GNU Binutils 
>>> for Debian) 2.40
>>> userspace arch: arm64
>>> syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=1798589f980000
>>> C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=10a30e00580000
>>>
>>> Downloadable assets:
>>> disk image: 
>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/aa2eb06e0aea/disk-df54f4a1.raw.xz
>>> vmlinux: 
>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/14728733d385/vmlinux-df54f4a1.xz
>>> kernel image: 
>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/99816271407d/Image-df54f4a1.gz.xz
>>>
>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the 
>>> commit:
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+51cf7cc5f9ffc1006ef2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>>
>>> ======================================================
>>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>>> 6.11.0-rc5-syzkaller-gdf54f4a16f82 #0 Not tainted
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> syz-executor272/6388 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> ffff8000923b6ce8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_lock+0x20/0x2c 
>>> net/core/rtnetlink.c:79
>>>
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>> ffff0000dc408a50 (&smc->clcsock_release_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: 
>>> smc_setsockopt+0x178/0x10fc net/smc/af_smc.c:3064
>>>
>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>

I have noticed this issue for a while, but I question the possibility of 
it. If I understand correctly, a deadlock issue following is reported here:

#2
lock_sock_smc
{
     clcsock_release_lock            --- deadlock
     {

     }
}

#1
rtnl_mutex
{
     lock_sock_smc
     {

     }
}

#0
clcsock_release_lock
{
     rtnl_mutex                      --deadlock
     {

     }
}

This is of course a deadlock, but #1 is suspicious.

How would this happen to a smc sock?

#1 ->
        lock_sock_nested+0x38/0xe8 net/core/sock.c:3543
        lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1607 [inline]
        sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1061 [inline]
        sockopt_lock_sock+0x58/0x74 net/core/sock.c:1052
        do_ip_setsockopt+0xe0/0x2358 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:1078
        ip_setsockopt+0x34/0x9c net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:1417
        raw_setsockopt+0x7c/0x2e0 net/ipv4/raw.c:845
        sock_common_setsockopt+0x70/0xe0 net/core/sock.c:3735
        do_sock_setsockopt+0x17c/0x354 net/socket.c:2324

As a comparison, the correct calling chain should be:

        sock_common_setsockopt+0x70/0xe0 net/core/sock.c:3735
        smc_setsockopt+0x150/0xcec net/smc/af_smc.c:3072
        do_sock_setsockopt+0x17c/0x354 net/socket.c:2324


That's to say,  any setting on SOL_IP options of smc_sock will
go with smc_setsockopt, which will try lock clcsock_release_lock at first.

Anyway, if anyone can explain #1, then we can see how to solve this problem,
otherwise I think this problem doesn't exist. (Just my opinion)

Best wishes,
D. Wythe