Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix atomicity violation in {conn,adv}_{min,max}_interval_set

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

Thanks for your feedback. Let me clarify the potential issue with concurrent execution of setmax and setmin functions. Consider a scenario where setmin writes a new, valid 'min' value, and concurrently, setmax writes a value that is greater than the old 'min' but smaller than the new 'min'. In this case, setmax might check against the old 'min' value (before acquiring the lock) but write its value after the 'min' has been updated by setmin. This leads to a situation where the 'max' value ends up being smaller than the 'min' value, which is an inconsistency.

Regarding the lock sequence you mentioned, it's indeed from the original code. My patch aims to include the validity checks within the lock/unlock sequence to prevent the described race condition.

Thanks,
Han

On 22/12/2023 下午7:41, David Laight wrote:
From: Gui-Dong Han
Sent: 22 December 2023 10:55

In {conn,adv}_min_interval_set():
	if (val < ... || val > ... || val > hdev->le_{conn,adv}_max_interval)
		return -EINVAL;
	hci_dev_lock(hdev);
	hdev->le_{conn,adv}_min_interval = val;
	hci_dev_unlock(hdev);

In {conn,adv}_max_interval_set():
	if (val < ... || val > ... || val < hdev->le_{conn,adv}_min_interval)
		return -EINVAL;
	hci_dev_lock(hdev);
	hdev->le_{conn,adv}_max_interval
	hci_dev_unlock(hdev);

The atomicity violation occurs due to concurrent execution of set_min and
set_max funcs which may lead to inconsistent reads and writes of the min
value and the max value. The checks for value validity are ineffective as
the min/max values could change immediately after being checked, raising
the risk of the min value being greater than the max value and causing
invalid settings.

This possible bug is found by an experimental static analysis tool
developed by our team, BassCheck[1]. This tool analyzes the locking APIs
to extract function pairs that can be concurrently executed, and then
analyzes the instructions in the paired functions to identify possible
concurrency bugs including data races and atomicity violations. The above
possible bug is reported when our tool analyzes the source code of
Linux 5.17.
Your static analysis tool is basically broken.

The only possible issues are if the accesses aren't atomic.
In practise they always will be but using READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE() would make that certain.

The lock sequence:
	hci_dev_lock(hdev);
  	hdev->le_conn_min_interval = val;
  	hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
is pretty pointless - is doesn't 'lock' two+ things together.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux