This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
sctp: fix recursive locking warning in sctp_do_peeloff
to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
sctp-fix-recursive-locking-warning-in-sctp_do_peeloff.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From foo@baz Mon Apr 9 17:09:24 CEST 2018
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:56:56 +0800
Subject: sctp: fix recursive locking warning in sctp_do_peeloff
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 6dfe4b97e08ec3d1a593fdaca099f0ef0a3a19e6 ]
Dmitry got the following recursive locking report while running syzkaller
fuzzer, the Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:16 [inline]
dump_stack+0x2ee/0x3ef lib/dump_stack.c:52
print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1729 [inline]
check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1773 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2251 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0xef2/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3755
lock_sock_nested+0xcb/0x120 net/core/sock.c:2536
lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1460 [inline]
sctp_close+0xcd/0x9d0 net/sctp/socket.c:1497
inet_release+0xed/0x1c0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:425
inet6_release+0x50/0x70 net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:432
sock_release+0x8d/0x1e0 net/socket.c:597
__sock_create+0x38b/0x870 net/socket.c:1226
sock_create+0x7f/0xa0 net/socket.c:1237
sctp_do_peeloff+0x1a2/0x440 net/sctp/socket.c:4879
sctp_getsockopt_peeloff net/sctp/socket.c:4914 [inline]
sctp_getsockopt+0x111a/0x67e0 net/sctp/socket.c:6628
sock_common_getsockopt+0x95/0xd0 net/core/sock.c:2690
SYSC_getsockopt net/socket.c:1817 [inline]
SyS_getsockopt+0x240/0x380 net/socket.c:1799
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xc2
This warning is caused by the lock held by sctp_getsockopt() is on one
socket, while the other lock that sctp_close() is getting later is on
the newly created (which failed) socket during peeloff operation.
This patch is to avoid this warning by use lock_sock with subclass
SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING as Wang Cong and Marcelo's suggestion.
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sctp/socket.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/net/sctp/socket.c
+++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
@@ -1519,7 +1519,7 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk,
pr_debug("%s: sk:%p, timeout:%ld\n", __func__, sk, timeout);
- lock_sock(sk);
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
sk->sk_state = SCTP_SS_CLOSING;
@@ -1569,7 +1569,7 @@ static void sctp_close(struct sock *sk,
* held and that should be grabbed before socket lock.
*/
spin_lock_bh(&net->sctp.addr_wq_lock);
- bh_lock_sock(sk);
+ bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
/* Hold the sock, since sk_common_release() will put sock_put()
* and we have just a little more cleanup.
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx are
queue-4.9/sctp-fix-recursive-locking-warning-in-sctp_do_peeloff.patch