6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit e28acc9c1ccfcb24c08e020828f69d0a915b06ae ]
Accessing `mr_table->mfc_cache_list` is protected by an RCU lock. In the
following code flow, the RCU read lock is not held, causing the
following error when `RCU_PROVE` is not held. The same problem might
show up in the IPv6 code path.
6.12.0-rc5-kbuilder-01145-gbac17284bdcb #33 Tainted: G E N
-----------------------------
net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c:313 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
2 locks held by RetransmitAggre/3519:
#0: ffff88816188c6c0 (nlk_cb_mutex-ROUTE){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __netlink_dump_start+0x8a/0x290
#1: ffffffff83fcf7a8 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rtnl_dumpit+0x6b/0x90
stack backtrace:
lockdep_rcu_suspicious
mr_table_dump
ipmr_rtm_dumproute
rtnl_dump_all
rtnl_dumpit
netlink_dump
__netlink_dump_start
rtnetlink_rcv_msg
netlink_rcv_skb
netlink_unicast
netlink_sendmsg
This is not a problem per see, since the RTNL lock is held here, so, it
is safe to iterate in the list without the RCU read lock, as suggested
by Eric.
To alleviate the concern, modify the code to use
list_for_each_entry_rcu() with the RTNL-held argument.
The annotation will raise an error only if RTNL or RCU read lock are
missing during iteration, signaling a legitimate problem, otherwise it
will avoid this false positive.
This will solve the IPv6 case as well, since ip6mr_rtm_dumproute() calls
this function as well.
Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241108-ipmr_rcu-v2-1-c718998e209b@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c
index 271dc03fc6dbd..f0af12a2f70bc 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr_base.c
@@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ int mr_table_dump(struct mr_table *mrt, struct sk_buff *skb,
if (filter->filter_set)
flags |= NLM_F_DUMP_FILTERED;
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(mfc, &mrt->mfc_cache_list, list) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(mfc, &mrt->mfc_cache_list, list,
+ lockdep_rtnl_is_held()) {
if (e < s_e)
goto next_entry;
if (filter->dev &&
--
2.43.0
