On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:07:45AM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On 08 Jan 12:12, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 04:24:10PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > On 04 Jan 08:51, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 11:12:46AM +0000, Ying Hsu wrote:
> > > > > There's a possible deadlock when two processes are connecting
> > > > > and closing concurrently:
> > > > > + CPU0: __rfcomm_dlc_close locks rfcomm and then calls
> > > > > rfcomm_sk_state_change which locks the sock.
> > > > > + CPU1: rfcomm_sock_connect locks the socket and then calls
> > > > > rfcomm_dlc_open which locks rfcomm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the call trace:
> > > > >
> > > > > -> #2 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> > > > > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline]
> > > > > __mutex_lock0x12f/0x1360 kernel/locking/mutex.c:747
> > > > > __rfcomm_dlc_close+0x15d/0x890 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c:487
> > > > > rfcomm_dlc_close+1e9/0x240 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c:520
> > > > > __rfcomm_sock_close+0x13c/0x250 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:220
> > > > > rfcomm_sock_shutdown+0xd8/0x230 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:907
> > > > > rfcomm_sock_release+0x68/0x140 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:928
> > > > > __sock_release+0xcd/0x280 net/socket.c:650
> > > > > sock_close+0x1c/0x20 net/socket.c:1365
> > > > > __fput+0x27c/0xa90 fs/file_table.c:320
> > > > > task_work_run+0x16f/0x270 kernel/task_work.c:179
> > > > > exit_task_work include/linux/task_work.h:38 [inline]
> > > > > do_exit+0xaa8/0x2950 kernel/exit.c:867
> > > > > do_group_exit+0xd4/0x2a0 kernel/exit.c:1012
> > > > > get_signal+0x21c3/0x2450 kernel/signal.c:2859
> > > > > arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x79/0x5c0 arch/x86/kernel/signal.c:306
> > > > > exit_to_user_mode_loop kernel/entry/common.c:168 [inline]
> > > > > exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x15f/0x250 kernel/entry/common.c:203
> > > > > __syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work kernel/entry/common.c:285 [inline]
> > > > > syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1d/0x50 kernel/entry/common.c:296
> > > > > do_syscall_64+0x46/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:86
> > > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > > > >
> > > > > -> #1 (rfcomm_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> > > > > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline]
> > > > > __mutex_lock+0x12f/0x1360 kernel/locking/mutex.c:747
> > > > > rfcomm_dlc_open+0x93/0xa80 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c:425
> > > > > rfcomm_sock_connect+0x329/0x450 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:413
> > > > > __sys_connect_file+0x153/0x1a0 net/socket.c:1976
> > > > > __sys_connect+0x165/0x1a0 net/socket.c:1993
> > > > > __do_sys_connect net/socket.c:2003 [inline]
> > > > > __se_sys_connect net/socket.c:2000 [inline]
> > > > > __x64_sys_connect+0x73/0xb0 net/socket.c:2000
> > > > > do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> > > > > do_syscall_64+0x39/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> > > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > > > >
> > > > > -> #0 (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_RFCOMM){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> > > > > check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3097 [inline]
> > > > > check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3216 [inline]
> > > > > validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3831 [inline]
> > > > > __lock_acquire+0x2a43/0x56d0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5055
> > > > > lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5668 [inline]
> > > > > lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5633
> > > > > lock_sock_nested+0x3a/0xf0 net/core/sock.c:3470
> > > > > lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1725 [inline]
> > > > > rfcomm_sk_state_change+0x6d/0x3a0 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:73
> > > > > __rfcomm_dlc_close+0x1b1/0x890 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c:489
> > > > > rfcomm_dlc_close+0x1e9/0x240 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c:520
> > > > > __rfcomm_sock_close+0x13c/0x250 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:220
> > > > > rfcomm_sock_shutdown+0xd8/0x230 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:907
> > > > > rfcomm_sock_release+0x68/0x140 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c:928
> > > > > __sock_release+0xcd/0x280 net/socket.c:650
> > > > > sock_close+0x1c/0x20 net/socket.c:1365
> > > > > __fput+0x27c/0xa90 fs/file_table.c:320
> > > > > task_work_run+0x16f/0x270 kernel/task_work.c:179
> > > > > exit_task_work include/linux/task_work.h:38 [inline]
> > > > > do_exit+0xaa8/0x2950 kernel/exit.c:867
> > > > > do_group_exit+0xd4/0x2a0 kernel/exit.c:1012
> > > > > get_signal+0x21c3/0x2450 kernel/signal.c:2859
> > > > > arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x79/0x5c0 arch/x86/kernel/signal.c:306
> > > > > exit_to_user_mode_loop kernel/entry/common.c:168 [inline]
> > > > > exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x15f/0x250 kernel/entry/common.c:203
> > > > > __syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work kernel/entry/common.c:285 [inline]
> > > > > syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1d/0x50 kernel/entry/common.c:296
> > > > > do_syscall_64+0x46/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:86
> > > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ying Hsu <yinghsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This commit has been tested with a C reproducer on qemu-x86_64.
> > > > >
> > > > > net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c | 2 ++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c
> > > > > index 21e24da4847f..29f9a88a3dc8 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c
> > > > > @@ -410,8 +410,10 @@ static int rfcomm_sock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr, int a
> > > > > d->sec_level = rfcomm_pi(sk)->sec_level;
> > > > > d->role_switch = rfcomm_pi(sk)->role_switch;
> > > > >
> > > > > + release_sock(sk);
> > > > > err = rfcomm_dlc_open(d, &rfcomm_pi(sk)->src, &sa->rc_bdaddr,
> > > > ^^^^
> > > > Are you sure that "sk" still exists here after you called to release_sock(sk)?
> > > > What prevents from use-after-free here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > sk must be valid to be locked in first place.
> >
> > It is, but after it is released it won't.
> >
>
> the code is symmetric: you hold the sk lock then do your thing and then
> release it.
>
> if you claim that sk can be freed by another process after you released it,
> then due to symmetry it also can be freed before you locked it, unless
So we can extend your logic and say what the lock_sock() in the beginning of
rfcomm_sock_connect() is not needed too.
Thanks
