netdev - [PATCH net] net: core: use list_del_init() instead of list_del() in netdev_run

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20201015162606.9377-1-ap420073@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:26:06 +0000
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     ap420073@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH net] net: core: use list_del_init() instead of list_del() in netdev_run_todo()

dev->unlink_list is reused unless dev is deleted.
So, list_del() should not be used.
Due to using list_del(), dev->unlink_list can't be reused so that
dev->nested_level update logic doesn't work.
In order to fix this bug, list_del_init() should be used instead
of list_del().

Test commands:
    ip link add bond0 type bond
    ip link add bond1 type bond
    ip link set bond0 master bond1
    ip link set bond0 nomaster
    ip link set bond1 master bond0
    ip link set bond1 nomaster

Splat looks like:
[  255.750458][ T1030] ============================================
[  255.751967][ T1030] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[  255.753435][ T1030] 5.9.0-rc8+ #772 Not tainted
[  255.754553][ T1030] --------------------------------------------
[  255.756047][ T1030] ip/1030 is trying to acquire lock:
[  255.757304][ T1030] ffff88811782a280 (&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150
[  255.760056][ T1030]
[  255.760056][ T1030] but task is already holding lock:
[  255.761862][ T1030] ffff88811130a280 (&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: bond_enslave+0x3d4d/0x43e0 [bonding]
[  255.764581][ T1030]
[  255.764581][ T1030] other info that might help us debug this:
[  255.766645][ T1030]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[  255.766645][ T1030]
[  255.768566][ T1030]        CPU0
[  255.769415][ T1030]        ----
[  255.770259][ T1030]   lock(&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1);
[  255.771629][ T1030]   lock(&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1);
[  255.772994][ T1030]
[  255.772994][ T1030]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[  255.772994][ T1030]
[  255.775091][ T1030]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[  255.775091][ T1030]
[  255.777182][ T1030] 2 locks held by ip/1030:
[  255.778299][ T1030]  #0: ffffffffb1f63250 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x2e4/0x8b0
[  255.780600][ T1030]  #1: ffff88811130a280 (&dev_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at: bond_enslave+0x3d4d/0x43e0 [bonding]
[  255.783411][ T1030]
[  255.783411][ T1030] stack backtrace:
[  255.784874][ T1030] CPU: 7 PID: 1030 Comm: ip Not tainted 5.9.0-rc8+ #772
[  255.786595][ T1030] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
[  255.789030][ T1030] Call Trace:
[  255.789850][ T1030]  dump_stack+0x99/0xd0
[  255.790882][ T1030]  __lock_acquire.cold.71+0x166/0x3cc
[  255.792285][ T1030]  ? register_lock_class+0x1a30/0x1a30
[  255.793619][ T1030]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x91/0xc0
[  255.794963][ T1030]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xa0/0xa0
[  255.796246][ T1030]  lock_acquire+0x1b8/0x850
[  255.797332][ T1030]  ? dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150
[  255.798624][ T1030]  ? bond_enslave+0x3d4d/0x43e0 [bonding]
[  255.800039][ T1030]  ? check_flags+0x50/0x50
[  255.801143][ T1030]  ? lock_contended+0xd80/0xd80
[  255.802341][ T1030]  _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x2e/0x70
[  255.803592][ T1030]  ? dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150
[  255.804897][ T1030]  dev_mc_sync_multiple+0xc2/0x150
[  255.806168][ T1030]  bond_enslave+0x3d58/0x43e0 [bonding]
[  255.807542][ T1030]  ? __lock_acquire+0xe53/0x51b0
[  255.808824][ T1030]  ? bond_update_slave_arr+0xdc0/0xdc0 [bonding]
[  255.810451][ T1030]  ? check_chain_key+0x236/0x5e0
[  255.811742][ T1030]  ? mutex_is_locked+0x13/0x50
[  255.812910][ T1030]  ? rtnl_is_locked+0x11/0x20
[  255.814061][ T1030]  ? netdev_master_upper_dev_get+0xf/0x120
[  255.815553][ T1030]  do_setlink+0x94c/0x3040
[ ... ]

Reported-by: syzbot+4a0f7bc34e3997a6c7df@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 1fc70edb7d7b ("net: core: add nested_level variable in net_device")
Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
---
 net/core/dev.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 4906b44af850..010de57488ce 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -10134,7 +10134,7 @@ void netdev_run_todo(void)
 		struct net_device *dev = list_first_entry(&unlink_list,
 							  struct net_device,
 							  unlink_list);
-		list_del(&dev->unlink_list);
+		list_del_init(&dev->unlink_list);
 		dev->nested_level = dev->lower_level - 1;
 	}
 #endif
-- 
2.17.1