[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251218012355.279940-1-kartikey406@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 06:53:54 +0530
From: Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@...il.com>
To: krzk@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org
Cc: linma@....edu.cn,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@...il.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+4ef89409a235d804c6c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: [PATCH v2] net: nfc: fix deadlock between nfc_unregister_device and rfkill_fop_write
A deadlock can occur between nfc_unregister_device() and rfkill_fop_write()
due to lock ordering inversion between device_lock and rfkill_global_mutex.
The problematic lock order is:
Thread A (rfkill_fop_write):
rfkill_fop_write()
mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex)
rfkill_set_block()
nfc_rfkill_set_block()
nfc_dev_down()
device_lock(&dev->dev) <- waits for device_lock
Thread B (nfc_unregister_device):
nfc_unregister_device()
device_lock(&dev->dev)
rfkill_unregister()
mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex) <- waits for rfkill_global_mutex
This creates a classic ABBA deadlock scenario.
Fix this by moving rfkill_unregister() and rfkill_destroy() outside the
device_lock critical section. Store the rfkill pointer in a local variable
before releasing the lock, then call rfkill_unregister() after releasing
device_lock.
This change is safe because rfkill_fop_write() holds rfkill_global_mutex
while calling the rfkill callbacks, and rfkill_unregister() also acquires
rfkill_global_mutex before cleanup. Therefore, rfkill_unregister() will
wait for any ongoing callback to complete before proceeding, and
device_del() is only called after rfkill_unregister() returns, preventing
any use-after-free.
The similar lock ordering in nfc_register_device() (device_lock ->
rfkill_global_mutex via rfkill_register) is safe because during
registration the device is not yet in rfkill_list, so no concurrent
rfkill operations can occur on this device.
Fixes: 3e3b5dfcd16a ("NFC: reorder the logic in nfc_{un,}register_device")
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Reported-by: syzbot+4ef89409a235d804c6c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=4ef89409a235d804c6c2
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217054908.178907-1-kartikey406@gmail.com/T/ [v1]
Signed-off-by: Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@...il.com>
---
v2:
- Added explanation of why UAF is not possible
- Added explanation of why nfc_register_device() is safe
- Added Fixes and Cc: stable tags
- Fixed blank line after variable declaration (kept it)
---
net/nfc/core.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/nfc/core.c b/net/nfc/core.c
index ae1c842f9c64..82f023f37754 100644
--- a/net/nfc/core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/core.c
@@ -1154,6 +1154,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfc_register_device);
void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
{
int rc;
+ struct rfkill *rfk = NULL;
pr_debug("dev_name=%s\n", dev_name(&dev->dev));
@@ -1164,13 +1165,17 @@ void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
device_lock(&dev->dev);
if (dev->rfkill) {
- rfkill_unregister(dev->rfkill);
- rfkill_destroy(dev->rfkill);
+ rfk = dev->rfkill;
dev->rfkill = NULL;
}
dev->shutting_down = true;
device_unlock(&dev->dev);
+ if (rfk) {
+ rfkill_unregister(rfk);
+ rfkill_destroy(rfk);
+ }
+
if (dev->ops->check_presence) {
timer_delete_sync(&dev->check_pres_timer);
cancel_work_sync(&dev->check_pres_work);
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists