netdev - Re: Potential deadlock BUG in drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/sta.c (Linux 4.9)

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]

Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:04:29 +0100
From:   Iago Abal <iago.abal@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Solomon Peachy <pizza@...ftnet.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Potential deadlock BUG in drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/sta.c
 (Linux 4.9)

Hi,

This still looks like a deadlock bug to me, could someone take a look
as well and confirm? I will help preparing a patch if needed.

Thanks,

-- iago


On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Iago Abal <iago.abal@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the help of a static bug finder (EBA -
> https://github.com/models-team/eba) I have found a potential deadlock
> in drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/
> sta.c. This happens due to a recursive mutex_lock on `priv->conf_mutex'.
>
> If this is indeed a bug, I will be happy to help with a patch.
>
> A quick (not elegant) fix could be to unlock before the call to
> `cw1200_do_unjoin' in line 1174, and lock again afterwards. It seems
> that `cw1200_join_complete' is always called with `priv->conf_mutex'
> held. Another option could be to add a Boolean parameter to
> `cw1200_do_unjoin' to choose whether this function should take the
> lock itself. Yet another option would be to have a
> `__cw1200_do_unjoin' that does not lock, and make `cw1200_do_unjoin' a
> wrapper over this that adds the locking; `cw1200_join_complete' would
> call `__cw1200_do_unjoin' instead.
>
> Someone who is actually familiar with this code may have a better
> proposal though.
>
> The trace is as follows:
>
> 1. Function `cw1200_join_complete_work' takes the first lock in line 1189:
>
>     // see https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v4.9-rc5/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/sta.c#L1189
>     mutex_lock(& priv->conf_mutex);
>
> 2. and subsequently calls `cw1200_join_complete';
> 3. which calls `cw1200_do_unjoin' in line 1174;
> 4. and this latter function takes the lock for the second time in line 1387:
>
>     // see https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v4.9-rc5/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/sta.c#L1387
>     mutex_lock(& priv->conf_mutex);
>
> Hope it helps!
>
> --
> iago