6.5-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 25563b581ba3a1f263a00e8c9a97f5e7363be6fd ]
While looking at a related syzbot report involving neigh_periodic_work(),
I found that I forgot to add an annotation when deleting an
RCU protected item from a list.
Readers use rcu_deference(*np), we need to use either
rcu_assign_pointer() or WRITE_ONCE() on writer side
to prevent store tearing.
I use rcu_assign_pointer() to have lockdep support,
this was the choice made in neigh_flush_dev().
Fixes: 767e97e1e0db ("neigh: RCU conversion of struct neighbour")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/core/neighbour.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
index ddd0f32de20ef..b57d3ea3ccc9e 100644
--- a/net/core/neighbour.c
+++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
@@ -988,7 +988,9 @@ static void neigh_periodic_work(struct work_struct *work)
(state == NUD_FAILED ||
!time_in_range_open(jiffies, n->used,
n->used + NEIGH_VAR(n->parms, GC_STALETIME)))) {
- *np = n->next;
+ rcu_assign_pointer(*np,
+ rcu_dereference_protected(n->next,
+ lockdep_is_held(&tbl->lock)));
neigh_mark_dead(n);
write_unlock(&n->lock);
neigh_cleanup_and_release(n);
--
2.40.1
