netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: call lock_sock() outside of spinlock section

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9771b40f-b544-a2a7-04e1-eddb38a4aae7@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Sat, 10 Jul 2021 22:34:29 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Lin Ma <linma@....edu.cn>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        "linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: call lock_sock() outside of spinlock
 section

On 2021/07/08 8:33, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>              we could perhaps don't release the reference to hdev
>> either and leave hci_sock_release to deal with it and then perhaps we
>> can take away the backward goto, actually why are you restarting to
>> begin with?
> 
> Do you mean something like
> 
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> index b04a5a02ecf3..0525883f4639 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> @@ -759,19 +759,14 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *hdev, int event)
>  	if (event == HCI_DEV_UNREG) {
>  		struct sock *sk;
>  
> -		/* Detach sockets from device */
> +		/* Change socket state and notify */
>  		read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
>  		sk_for_each(sk, &hci_sk_list.head) {
> -			lock_sock(sk);
>  			if (hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
> -				hci_pi(sk)->hdev = NULL;
>  				sk->sk_err = EPIPE;
>  				sk->sk_state = BT_OPEN;
>  				sk->sk_state_change(sk);
> -
> -				hci_dev_put(hdev);
>  			}
> -			release_sock(sk);
>  		}
>  		read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
>  	}
> 
> ? I can't judge because I don't know how this works. I worry that
> without lock_sock()/release_sock(), this races with e.g. hci_sock_bind().
> 

I examined hci_unregister_dev() and concluded that this can't work.

hci_sock_dev_event(hdev, HCI_DEV_UNREG) can't defer dropping the reference to
this hdev till hci_sock_release(), for hci_unregister_dev() cleans up everything
related to this hdev and calls hci_dev_put(hdev) and then vhci_release() calls
hci_free_dev(hdev).

That's the reason hci_sock_dev_event() has to use lock_sock() in order not to
miss some hci_dev_put(hdev) calls.

>> This sounds a little too complicated, afaik backward goto is not even
>> consider a good practice either, since it appears we don't unlink the
>> sockets here

Despite your comment, I'd like to go with choice (3) for now. After lock_sock() became
free from delay caused by pagefault handling, we could consider updating to choice (1).