| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240515142934.3708038-1-edumazet@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 14:29:34 +0000
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: [PATCH net] netrom: fix possible dead-lock in nr_rt_ioctl()
syzbot loves netrom, and found a possible deadlock in nr_rt_ioctl [1]
Make sure we always acquire nr_node_list_lock before nr_node_lock(nr_node)
[1]
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.9.0-rc7-syzkaller-02147-g654de42f3fc6 #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor350/5129 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline]
ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_node_lock include/net/netrom.h:152 [inline]
ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:464 [inline]
ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_rt_ioctl+0x1bb/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline]
ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:462 [inline]
ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_rt_ioctl+0x10a/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}:
lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:126 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock_bh+0x35/0x50 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:178
spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline]
nr_remove_node net/netrom/nr_route.c:299 [inline]
nr_del_node+0x4b4/0x820 net/netrom/nr_route.c:355
nr_rt_ioctl+0xa95/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:683
sock_do_ioctl+0x158/0x460 net/socket.c:1222
sock_ioctl+0x629/0x8e0 net/socket.c:1341
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:904 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:890
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
-> #0 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x18cb/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1346/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:126 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock_bh+0x35/0x50 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:178
spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline]
nr_node_lock include/net/netrom.h:152 [inline]
nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:464 [inline]
nr_rt_ioctl+0x1bb/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697
sock_do_ioctl+0x158/0x460 net/socket.c:1222
sock_ioctl+0x629/0x8e0 net/socket.c:1341
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:904 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:890
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(nr_node_list_lock);
lock(&nr_node->node_lock);
lock(nr_node_list_lock);
lock(&nr_node->node_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by syz-executor350/5129:
#0: ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline]
#0: ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:462 [inline]
#0: ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_rt_ioctl+0x10a/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 5129 Comm: syz-executor350 Not tainted 6.9.0-rc7-syzkaller-02147-g654de42f3fc6 #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 04/02/2024
Call Trace:
<TASK>
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0x241/0x360 lib/dump_stack.c:114
check_noncircular+0x36a/0x4a0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2187
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x18cb/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1346/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:126 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock_bh+0x35/0x50 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:178
spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline]
nr_node_lock include/net/netrom.h:152 [inline]
nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:464 [inline]
nr_rt_ioctl+0x1bb/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697
sock_do_ioctl+0x158/0x460 net/socket.c:1222
sock_ioctl+0x629/0x8e0 net/socket.c:1341
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:904 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:890
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
---
net/netrom/nr_route.c | 19 +++++++------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/netrom/nr_route.c b/net/netrom/nr_route.c
index 70480869ad1c566a8ab8a28c0d39bdae056ec596..bd2b17b219ae90ae473927bc3b450d3ff207a1c2 100644
--- a/net/netrom/nr_route.c
+++ b/net/netrom/nr_route.c
@@ -285,22 +285,14 @@ static int __must_check nr_add_node(ax25_address *nr, const char *mnemonic,
return 0;
}
-static inline void __nr_remove_node(struct nr_node *nr_node)
+static void nr_remove_node_locked(struct nr_node *nr_node)
{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&nr_node_list_lock);
+
hlist_del_init(&nr_node->node_node);
nr_node_put(nr_node);
}
-#define nr_remove_node_locked(__node) \
- __nr_remove_node(__node)
-
-static void nr_remove_node(struct nr_node *nr_node)
-{
- spin_lock_bh(&nr_node_list_lock);
- __nr_remove_node(nr_node);
- spin_unlock_bh(&nr_node_list_lock);
-}
-
static inline void __nr_remove_neigh(struct nr_neigh *nr_neigh)
{
hlist_del_init(&nr_neigh->neigh_node);
@@ -339,6 +331,7 @@ static int nr_del_node(ax25_address *callsign, ax25_address *neighbour, struct n
return -EINVAL;
}
+ spin_lock_bh(&nr_node_list_lock);
nr_node_lock(nr_node);
for (i = 0; i < nr_node->count; i++) {
if (nr_node->routes[i].neighbour == nr_neigh) {
@@ -352,7 +345,7 @@ static int nr_del_node(ax25_address *callsign, ax25_address *neighbour, struct n
nr_node->count--;
if (nr_node->count == 0) {
- nr_remove_node(nr_node);
+ nr_remove_node_locked(nr_node);
} else {
switch (i) {
case 0:
@@ -367,12 +360,14 @@ static int nr_del_node(ax25_address *callsign, ax25_address *neighbour, struct n
nr_node_put(nr_node);
}
nr_node_unlock(nr_node);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&nr_node_list_lock);
return 0;
}
}
nr_neigh_put(nr_neigh);
nr_node_unlock(nr_node);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&nr_node_list_lock);
nr_node_put(nr_node);
return -EINVAL;
--
2.45.0.rc1.225.g2a3ae87e7f-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists