netdev - Re: [syzbot] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context in smc_pnet_apply

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: <2691692.BEx9A2HvPv@leap>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:05:31 +0100
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     jgg@...pe.ca, liangwenpeng@...wei.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        liweihang@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+4f322a6d84e991c38775@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context in smc_pnet_apply_ib

On giovedì 17 febbraio 2022 17:41:22 CET syzbot wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> syzbot found the following issue on:
> 
> HEAD commit:    c832962ac972 net: bridge: multicast: notify switchdev driv..
> git tree:       net
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=16b157bc700000
> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=266de9da75c71a45
> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=4f322a6d84e991c38775
> compiler:       gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> 
> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> Reported-by: syzbot+4f322a6d84e991c38775@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> 
> infiniband syz1: set down
> infiniband syz1: added lo
> RDS/IB: syz1: added
> smc: adding ib device syz1 with port count 1
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:577
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 17974, name: syz-executor.3
> preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
> RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
> 6 locks held by syz-executor.3/17974:
>  #0: ffffffff90865838 (&rdma_nl_types[idx].sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: rdma_nl_rcv_msg+0x161/0x690 drivers/infiniband/core/netlink.c:164
>  #1: ffffffff8d04edf0 (link_ops_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: nldev_newlink+0x25d/0x560 drivers/infiniband/core/nldev.c:1707
>  #2: ffffffff8d03e650 (devices_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: enable_device_and_get+0xfc/0x3b0 drivers/infiniband/core/device.c:1321
>  #3: ffffffff8d03e510 (clients_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: enable_device_and_get+0x15b/0x3b0 drivers/infiniband/core/device.c:1329
>  #4: ffff8880482c85c0 (&device->client_data_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: add_client_context+0x3d0/0x5e0 drivers/infiniband/core/device.c:718
>  #5: ffff8880230a4118 (&pnettable->lock){++++}-{2:2}, at: smc_pnetid_by_table_ib+0x18c/0x470 net/smc/smc_pnet.c:1159
> Preemption disabled at:
> [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
> CPU: 1 PID: 17974 Comm: syz-executor.3 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc3-syzkaller-00170-gc832962ac972 #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> Call Trace:
>  <TASK>
>  __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
>  dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106
>  __might_resched.cold+0x222/0x26b kernel/sched/core.c:9576
>  __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:577 [inline]
>  __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x12f0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:733
>  smc_pnet_apply_ib+0x28/0x160 net/smc/smc_pnet.c:251
>  smc_pnetid_by_table_ib+0x2ae/0x470 net/smc/smc_pnet.c:1164

If I recall it well, read_lock() disables preemption. 

smc_pnetid_by_table_ib() uses read_lock() and then it calls smc_pnet_apply_ib() 
which, in turn, calls mutex_lock(&smc_ib_devices.mutex). Therefore the code 
acquires a mutex while in atomic and we get a SAC bug.

Actually, even if my argument is correct(?), I don't know if the read_lock() 
in smc_pnetid_by_table_ib() can be converted to a sleeping lock like a mutex or 
a semaphore.

Any comment? 

Thanks,

Fabio M. De Francesco