On 12/11/2024 at 21:41:45 +08, Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:01:21 +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>On 12/11/2024 at 08:21:33 +08, Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:46:57 +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>> On 08/11/2024 at 22:54:20 +08, Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> > syzkaller reported a corrupted list in ieee802154_if_remove. [1] >>>> > >>>> > Remove an IEEE 802.15.4 network interface after unregister an IEEE 802.15.4 >>>> > hardware device from the system. >>>> > >>>> > CPU0 CPU1 >>>> > ==== ==== >>>> > genl_family_rcv_msg_doit ieee802154_unregister_hw >>>> > ieee802154_del_iface ieee802154_remove_interfaces >>>> > rdev_del_virtual_intf_deprecated list_del(&sdata->list) >>>> > ieee802154_if_remove >>>> > list_del_rcu >>>> >>>> FYI this is a "duplicate" but with a different approach than: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wpan/87v7wtpngj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m02cebe86ec0171fc4d3350676bbdd4a7e3827077 >>> No, my patch was the first to fix it, someone else copied my >>> patch. Here is my patch: >> >>Ok, so same question as to the other contributor, why not enclosing the >>remaining list_del_rcu() within mutex protection? Can we avoid the >>creation of the LISTDONE state bit? > From the analysis of the list itself, we can not rely on the newly added state bit. > The net device has been unregistered, since the rcu grace period, > unregistration must be run before ieee802154_if_remove. > > Following is my V2 patch, it has been tested and works well. Please send a proper v2, not an inline v2. However the new approach looks better to me, so you can add my Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Miquèl
