Oops, sorry for the delay here. I just forgot to check the mails.
This comment is right, when I submit this patch I mentioned that the replacement of this lock can hang the detaching routine because it needs to wait the release of the lock_sock().
But this does no harm in my testing. In fact, the relevant code can only be executed when removing the controller. I think it can wait for the lock. Moreover, this patch can fix the potential UAF indeed.
> may need further discussion. (wrote in previous mail list
Welcome the additional advise on this. Does this really broken the lock principle?
Regards Lin Ma
在 2021-06-16 23:01:08，"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
>On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 04:15:02PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/8/21 8:27 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > From: Lin Ma <linma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > commit e305509e678b3a4af2b3cfd410f409f7cdaabb52 upstream.
>> >
>> > The hci_sock_dev_event() function will cleanup the hdev object for
>> > sockets even if this object may still be in used within the
>> > hci_sock_bound_ioctl() function, result in UAF vulnerability.
>> >
>> > This patch replace the BH context lock to serialize these affairs
>> > and prevent the race condition.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c | 4 ++--
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
>> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
>> > @@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *
>> > /* Detach sockets from device */
>> > read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
>> > sk_for_each(sk, &hci_sk_list.head) {
>> > - bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
>> > + lock_sock(sk);
>> > if (hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
>> > hci_pi(sk)->hdev = NULL;
>> > sk->sk_err = EPIPE;
>> > @@ -764,7 +764,7 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *
>> >
>> > hci_dev_put(hdev);
>> > }
>> > - bh_unlock_sock(sk);
>> > + release_sock(sk);
>> > }
>> > read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> This patch is buggy.
>>
>> lock_sock() can sleep.
>>
>> But the read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock) two lines before is not going to allow the sleep.
>>
>> Hmmm ?
>>
>>
>
>Odd, Lin, did you see any problems with your testing of this?
>
