From patchwork Wed Aug 24 16:35:45 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: David Howells X-Patchwork-Id: 12953803 X-Patchwork-Delegate: kuba@kernel.org Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8E6C00140 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239629AbiHXQgB (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 12:36:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57562 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239519AbiHXQf5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 12:35:57 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E77BB8E99D for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:35:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1661358954; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m0KR4vL6ySw4rihLMgrHUCidUC+v+EUxFqwClhhwIGY=; b=e/1zmuU9C8lqhFIvM2SP2hL3nQ5IpqQOQ16fZInJFBpeewKChULYmT76OVI2xA0Vd0o8Du STVkPmYQqW4zh2oVxe2fxRbBXDnBj5TlIaDQY0uQVK5CwbGJvZR4kc8J9T7WFa/fEiSQRE X2D4zEsW4hbsO9ubQHhJVr/265KfBVk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-57-Cv_QNLo0PTyovl3xp0P-jA-1; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 12:35:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Cv_QNLo0PTyovl3xp0P-jA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 975DC101A54E; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.33.36.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763901121315; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Subject: [PATCH net] rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg From: David Howells To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Marc Dionne , syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Hawkins Jiawei , Khalid Masum , Dan Carpenter , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:35:45 +0100 Message-ID: <166135894583.600315.7170979436768124075.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> User-Agent: StGit/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.3 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org X-Patchwork-Delegate: kuba@kernel.org Fix three bugs in the rxrpc's sendmsg implementation: (1) rxrpc_new_client_call() should release the socket lock when returning an error from rxrpc_get_call_slot(). (2) rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr() will return without the call mutex held in the event that we're interrupted by a signal whilst waiting for tx space on the socket or relocking the call mutex afterwards. Fix this by: (a) moving the unlock/lock of the call mutex up to rxrpc_send_data() such that the lock is not held around all of rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window*() and (b) indicating to higher callers whether we're return with the lock dropped. Note that this means recvmsg() will not block on this call whilst we're waiting. (3) After dropping and regaining the call mutex, rxrpc_send_data() needs to go and recheck the state of the tx_pending buffer and the tx_total_len check in case we raced with another sendmsg() on the same call. Thinking on this some more, it might make sense to have different locks for sendmsg() and recvmsg(). There's probably no need to make recvmsg() wait for sendmsg(). It does mean that recvmsg() can return MSG_EOR indicating that a call is dead before a sendmsg() to that call returns - but that can currently happen anyway. Without fix (2), something like the following can be induced: WARNING: bad unlock balance detected! 5.16.0-rc6-syzkaller #0 Not tainted ------------------------------------- syz-executor011/3597 is trying to release lock (&call->user_mutex) at: [] rxrpc_do_sendmsg+0xc13/0x1350 net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:748 but there are no more locks to release! other info that might help us debug this: no locks held by syz-executor011/3597. ... Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_unlock_imbalance_bug include/trace/events/lock.h:58 [inline] __lock_release kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5306 [inline] lock_release.cold+0x49/0x4e kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5657 __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x99/0x5e0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:900 rxrpc_do_sendmsg+0xc13/0x1350 net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:748 rxrpc_sendmsg+0x420/0x630 net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c:561 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:704 [inline] sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120 net/socket.c:724 ____sys_sendmsg+0x6e8/0x810 net/socket.c:2409 ___sys_sendmsg+0xf3/0x170 net/socket.c:2463 __sys_sendmsg+0xe5/0x1b0 net/socket.c:2492 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [Thanks to Hawkins Jiawei and Khalid Masum for their attempts to fix this] Fixes: bc5e3a546d55 ("rxrpc: Use MSG_WAITALL to tell sendmsg() to temporarily ignore signals") Reported-by: syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: David Howells Reviewed-by: Marc Dionne Tested-by: syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com cc: Hawkins Jiawei cc: Khalid Masum cc: Dan Carpenter cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org --- net/rxrpc/call_object.c | 4 ++ net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/rxrpc/call_object.c b/net/rxrpc/call_object.c index 84d0a4109645..6401cdf7a624 100644 --- a/net/rxrpc/call_object.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/call_object.c @@ -285,8 +285,10 @@ struct rxrpc_call *rxrpc_new_client_call(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, _enter("%p,%lx", rx, p->user_call_ID); limiter = rxrpc_get_call_slot(p, gfp); - if (!limiter) + if (!limiter) { + release_sock(&rx->sk); return ERR_PTR(-ERESTARTSYS); + } call = rxrpc_alloc_client_call(rx, srx, gfp, debug_id); if (IS_ERR(call)) { diff --git a/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c b/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c index 1d38e279e2ef..3c3a626459de 100644 --- a/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c @@ -51,10 +51,7 @@ static int rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, return sock_intr_errno(*timeo); trace_rxrpc_transmit(call, rxrpc_transmit_wait); - mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); *timeo = schedule_timeout(*timeo); - if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&call->user_mutex) < 0) - return sock_intr_errno(*timeo); } } @@ -290,37 +287,48 @@ static int rxrpc_queue_packet(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct rxrpc_call *call, static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct rxrpc_call *call, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, - rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t notify_end_tx) + rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t notify_end_tx, + bool *_dropped_lock) { struct rxrpc_skb_priv *sp; struct sk_buff *skb; struct sock *sk = &rx->sk; + enum rxrpc_call_state state; long timeo; - bool more; - int ret, copied; + bool more = msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE; + int ret, copied = 0; timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT); /* this should be in poll */ sk_clear_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, sk); +reload: + ret = -EPIPE; if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) - return -EPIPE; - - more = msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE; - + goto maybe_error; + state = READ_ONCE(call->state); + ret = -ESHUTDOWN; + if (state >= RXRPC_CALL_COMPLETE) + goto maybe_error; + ret = -EPROTO; + if (state != RXRPC_CALL_CLIENT_SEND_REQUEST && + state != RXRPC_CALL_SERVER_ACK_REQUEST && + state != RXRPC_CALL_SERVER_SEND_REPLY) + goto maybe_error; + + ret = -EMSGSIZE; if (call->tx_total_len != -1) { - if (len > call->tx_total_len) - return -EMSGSIZE; - if (!more && len != call->tx_total_len) - return -EMSGSIZE; + if (len - copied > call->tx_total_len) + goto maybe_error; + if (!more && len - copied != call->tx_total_len) + goto maybe_error; } skb = call->tx_pending; call->tx_pending = NULL; rxrpc_see_skb(skb, rxrpc_skb_seen); - copied = 0; do { /* Check to see if there's a ping ACK to reply to. */ if (call->ackr_reason == RXRPC_ACK_PING_RESPONSE) @@ -331,16 +339,8 @@ static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, _debug("alloc"); - if (!rxrpc_check_tx_space(call, NULL)) { - ret = -EAGAIN; - if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) - goto maybe_error; - ret = rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window(rx, call, - &timeo, - msg->msg_flags & MSG_WAITALL); - if (ret < 0) - goto maybe_error; - } + if (!rxrpc_check_tx_space(call, NULL)) + goto wait_for_space; /* Work out the maximum size of a packet. Assume that * the security header is going to be in the padded @@ -468,6 +468,27 @@ static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, efault: ret = -EFAULT; goto out; + +wait_for_space: + ret = -EAGAIN; + if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) + goto maybe_error; + mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); + *_dropped_lock = true; + ret = rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window(rx, call, &timeo, + msg->msg_flags & MSG_WAITALL); + if (ret < 0) + goto maybe_error; + if (call->interruptibility == RXRPC_INTERRUPTIBLE) { + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&call->user_mutex) < 0) { + ret = sock_intr_errno(timeo); + goto maybe_error; + } + } else { + mutex_lock(&call->user_mutex); + } + *_dropped_lock = false; + goto reload; } /* @@ -629,6 +650,7 @@ int rxrpc_do_sendmsg(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) enum rxrpc_call_state state; struct rxrpc_call *call; unsigned long now, j; + bool dropped_lock = false; int ret; struct rxrpc_send_params p = { @@ -737,21 +759,13 @@ int rxrpc_do_sendmsg(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) ret = rxrpc_send_abort_packet(call); } else if (p.command != RXRPC_CMD_SEND_DATA) { ret = -EINVAL; - } else if (rxrpc_is_client_call(call) && - state != RXRPC_CALL_CLIENT_SEND_REQUEST) { - /* request phase complete for this client call */ - ret = -EPROTO; - } else if (rxrpc_is_service_call(call) && - state != RXRPC_CALL_SERVER_ACK_REQUEST && - state != RXRPC_CALL_SERVER_SEND_REPLY) { - /* Reply phase not begun or not complete for service call. */ - ret = -EPROTO; } else { - ret = rxrpc_send_data(rx, call, msg, len, NULL); + ret = rxrpc_send_data(rx, call, msg, len, NULL, &dropped_lock); } out_put_unlock: - mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); + if (!dropped_lock) + mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); error_put: rxrpc_put_call(call, rxrpc_call_put); _leave(" = %d", ret); @@ -779,6 +793,7 @@ int rxrpc_kernel_send_data(struct socket *sock, struct rxrpc_call *call, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t notify_end_tx) { + bool dropped_lock = false; int ret; _enter("{%d,%s},", call->debug_id, rxrpc_call_states[call->state]); @@ -796,7 +811,7 @@ int rxrpc_kernel_send_data(struct socket *sock, struct rxrpc_call *call, case RXRPC_CALL_SERVER_ACK_REQUEST: case RXRPC_CALL_SERVER_SEND_REPLY: ret = rxrpc_send_data(rxrpc_sk(sock->sk), call, msg, len, - notify_end_tx); + notify_end_tx, &dropped_lock); break; case RXRPC_CALL_COMPLETE: read_lock_bh(&call->state_lock); @@ -810,7 +825,8 @@ int rxrpc_kernel_send_data(struct socket *sock, struct rxrpc_call *call, break; } - mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); + if (!dropped_lock) + mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); _leave(" = %d", ret); return ret; }