Hi Edward,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 8:53 PM Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz Augusto von Dentz,
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:36:14 -0400, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> > > > Looks like this was never really tested properly:
> > > >
> > > > ============================================
> > > > WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > > > 6.10.0-rc3-g4029dba6b6f1 #6823 Not tainted
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > kworker/u5:0/35 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > > ffff888002ec2510 (&chan->lock#2/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> > > > l2cap_sock_recv_cb+0x44/0x1e0
> > > >
> > > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > > ffff888002ec2510 (&chan->lock#2/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> > > > l2cap_get_chan_by_scid+0xaf/0xd0
> > > >
> > > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > > >
> > > > CPU0
> > > > ----
> > > > lock(&chan->lock#2/1);
> > > > lock(&chan->lock#2/1);
> > > >
> > > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> > > >
> > > > May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > > >
> > > > 3 locks held by kworker/u5:0/35:
> > > > #0: ffff888002b8a940 ((wq_completion)hci0#2){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> > > > process_one_work+0x750/0x930
> > > > #1: ffff888002c67dd0 ((work_completion)(&hdev->rx_work)){+.+.}-{0:0},
> > > > at: process_one_work+0x44e/0x930
> > > > #2: ffff888002ec2510 (&chan->lock#2/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> > > > l2cap_get_chan_by_scid+0xaf/0xd0
> > > >
> > > > l2cap_sock_recv_cb is assumed to be called with the chan_lock held so
> > > > perhaps we can just do:
> > > >
> > > > sk = chan->data;
> > > > if (!sk)
> > > > return -ENXIO;
> > >
> > > If the release occurs after this judgment, the same problem will still occur.
> > > Recv and release must be synchronized using locks, which can be solved by
> > > adding new lock.
> > >
> > > Please use the new patch https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Patch&x=15d2c48e980000, I have tested in
> > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b7f6f8c9303466e16c8a
> >
> > Hmm, why don't we just fix l2cap_conless_channel? Btw,
> > l2cap_conless_channel is normally not used by any profiles thus why
> > there isn't any CI covering it, on the other hand l2cap_data_channel
> > is used by 99% of the profiles.
> Yes, we can fix l2cap_conless_channel, but key point is that "chan->lock"
> cannot be used to synchronize l2cap_conless_channel and l2cap_sock_release,
> otherwise it will form an AA lock with l2cap_data_channel.
Don't follow, what l2cap_conless_channel has to do with
l2cap_data_channel? You can't have the same channel calling both, it
is either connectionless or it is not.
> Why not fix it in l2cap_conless_channel but in l2cap_sock_recv_cb, because
> l2cap_sock_recv_cb is on the same layer as l2cap_sock_kill, using a new
> lock for synchronization is more appropriate.
There are dedicated locks for both layers and now that we are doing
chan->lock for before chan->recv the locking sequence should be the
same in all instances.
> --
> Edward
>
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
