diff mbox series

[net-next,v5,01/10] net/smc: fix potential panic dues to unprotected smc_llc_srv_add_link()

Message ID 1669218890-115854-2-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers fail 1 blamed authors not CCed: ubraun@linux.ibm.com; 3 maintainers not CCed: pabeni@redhat.com edumazet@google.com ubraun@linux.ibm.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 10 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

D. Wythe Nov. 23, 2022, 3:54 p.m. UTC 
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>

After we optimize the parallel capability of SMC-R connection establish,
there is a certain chance to trigger the following panic:

PID: 5900   TASK: ffff88c1c8af4100  CPU: 1   COMMAND: "kworker/1:48"
 #0 [ffff9456c1cc79a0] machine_kexec at ffffffff870665b7
 #1 [ffff9456c1cc79f0] __crash_kexec at ffffffff871b4c7a
 #2 [ffff9456c1cc7ab0] crash_kexec at ffffffff871b5b60
 #3 [ffff9456c1cc7ac0] oops_end at ffffffff87026ce7
 #4 [ffff9456c1cc7ae0] page_fault_oops at ffffffff87075715
 #5 [ffff9456c1cc7b58] exc_page_fault at ffffffff87ad0654
 #6 [ffff9456c1cc7b80] asm_exc_page_fault at ffffffff87c00b62
    [exception RIP: ib_alloc_mr+19]
    RIP: ffffffffc0c9cce3  RSP: ffff9456c1cc7c38  RFLAGS: 00010202
    RAX: 0000000000000000  RBX: 0000000000000002  RCX: 0000000000000004
    RDX: 0000000000000010  RSI: 0000000000000000  RDI: 0000000000000000
    RBP: ffff88c1ea281d00   R8: 000000020a34ffff   R9: ffff88c1350bbb20
    R10: 0000000000000000  R11: 0000000000000001  R12: 0000000000000000
    R13: 0000000000000010  R14: ffff88c1ab040a50  R15: ffff88c1ea281d00
    ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff  CS: 0010  SS: 0018
 #7 [ffff9456c1cc7c60] smc_ib_get_memory_region at ffffffffc0aff6df [smc]
 #8 [ffff9456c1cc7c88] smcr_buf_map_link at ffffffffc0b0278c [smc]
 #9 [ffff9456c1cc7ce0] __smc_buf_create at ffffffffc0b03586 [smc]

The reason here is that when the server tries to create a second link,
smc_llc_srv_add_link() has no protection and may add a new link to
link group. This breaks the security environment protected by
llc_conf_mutex.

Fixes: 2d2209f20189 ("net/smc: first part of add link processing as SMC server")
Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
index e44ca70..8594927 100644
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -1825,8 +1825,10 @@  static int smcr_serv_conf_first_link(struct smc_sock *smc)
 	smc_llc_link_active(link);
 	smcr_lgr_set_type(link->lgr, SMC_LGR_SINGLE);
 
+	mutex_lock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
 	/* initial contact - try to establish second link */
 	smc_llc_srv_add_link(link, NULL);
+	mutex_unlock(&link->lgr->llc_conf_mutex);
 	return 0;
 }