[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48d66166-4d39-4fe2-3392-7e0c84b9bdb3@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:27:49 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Lin Ma <linma@....edu.cn>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: call lock_sock() outside of spinlock section
syzbot is hitting might_sleep() warning at hci_sock_dev_event() due to
calling lock_sock() with rw spinlock held [1]. Among three possible
approaches [2], this patch chose holding a refcount via sock_hold() and
revalidating the element via sk_hashed().
Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=a5df189917e79d5e59c9 [1]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/05535d35-30d6-28b6-067e-272d01679d24@i-love.sakura.ne.jp [2]
Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+a5df189917e79d5e59c9@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Tested-by: syzbot <syzbot+a5df189917e79d5e59c9@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Fixes: e305509e678b3a4a ("Bluetooth: use correct lock to prevent UAF of hdev object")
---
Changes in v3:
Don't use unlocked hci_pi(sk)->hdev != hdev test, for it is racy.
No need to defer hci_dev_put(hdev), for it can't be the last reference.
Changes in v2:
Take hci_sk_list.lock for write in case bt_sock_unlink() is called after
sk_hashed(sk) test, and defer hci_dev_put(hdev) till schedulable context.
net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
index b04a5a02ecf3..786a06a232fd 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
@@ -760,10 +760,18 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *hdev, int event)
struct sock *sk;
/* Detach sockets from device */
+restart:
read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
sk_for_each(sk, &hci_sk_list.head) {
+ /* This sock_hold(sk) is safe, for bt_sock_unlink(sk)
+ * is not called yet.
+ */
+ sock_hold(sk);
+ read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
lock_sock(sk);
- if (hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
+ write_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
+ /* Check that bt_sock_unlink(sk) is not called yet. */
+ if (sk_hashed(sk) && hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
hci_pi(sk)->hdev = NULL;
sk->sk_err = EPIPE;
sk->sk_state = BT_OPEN;
@@ -771,7 +779,27 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *hdev, int event)
hci_dev_put(hdev);
}
+ write_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
release_sock(sk);
+ read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
+ /* If bt_sock_unlink(sk) is not called yet, we can
+ * continue iteration. We can use __sock_put(sk) here
+ * because hci_sock_release() will call sock_put(sk)
+ * after bt_sock_unlink(sk).
+ */
+ if (sk_hashed(sk)) {
+ __sock_put(sk);
+ continue;
+ }
+ /* Otherwise, we need to restart iteration, for the
+ * next socket pointed by sk->next might be already
+ * gone. We can't use __sock_put(sk) here because
+ * hci_sock_release() might have already called
+ * sock_put(sk) after bt_sock_unlink(sk).
+ */
+ read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
+ sock_put(sk);
+ goto restart;
}
read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
}
--
2.18.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists