Make check_func_arg type checks table driven #26
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…nst pointer. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> --- include/linux/bpf.h | 2 +- kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
…. This makes check_stack_boundary easier to understand. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 24 +++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
a single item. This lets us cut down on repetitive macros. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> --- include/linux/btf_ids.h | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
… signal which BTF IDs are acceptable. First, bpf_func_proto.btf_id is an array of IDs, one for each argument. This array is only accessed up to the highest numbered argument that uses ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID and may therefore be less than five arguments long. It usually points at a BTF_ID_LIST. Second, check_btf_id is a function pointer that is called by the verifier if present. It gets the actual BTF ID of the register, and the argument number we're currently checking. It turns out that the only user check_arg_btf_id ignores the argument, and is simply used to check whether the BTF ID has a struct sock_common at it's start. Replace both of these mechanisms with an explicit BTF ID for each argument in a function proto. Thanks to btf_struct_ids_match this is very flexible: check_arg_btf_id can be replaced by requiring struct sock_common. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> --- include/linux/bpf.h | 18 ++++++++++-------- kernel/bpf/bpf_inode_storage.c | 8 +++----- kernel/bpf/btf.c | 13 ------------- kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 5 ++--- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 32 ++++++++++---------------------- kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 15 ++++++--------- net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c | 10 ++++------ net/core/filter.c | 31 +++++++++---------------------- net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 19 +++++-------------- 9 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
pointer, rather than if the argument is for a BTF pointer. This is easier to understand, and allows removing the code from the arg_type checking section of the function. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
…pe that needs it, rely on the fact that ref_obj_id is zero if the register is not reference tracked. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 26 ++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
PTR_TO_CTX, rather than relying on ARG_PTR_TO_CTX. This allows simplifying the arg_type checking section of the function. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
on the type of memory we point at. What isn't obvious is that this information is only used when the next memory size argument is encountered. Move the assignment closer to where it's used, and add a comment that explains what is going on. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
checking is done as well. Move the invocation of process_spin_lock away from the register type checking, to allow a future refactoring. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
…hes. They work around the fact that *_OR_NULL argument types should accept a SCALAR_VALUE register, as long as it's value is 0. These statements make it difficult to reason about the type checking logic. Instead, skip more detailed type checking logic iff the register is 0, and the function expects a nullable type. This allows simplifying the type checking itself. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
hairy if statement that is hard to follow. The debug output also leaves
to be desired: if a reg_type doesn't match we only print one of the
options, instead printing all the valid ones.
Convert the if statement into a table which is then used to drive type
checking. If none of the reg_types match we print all options, e.g.:
R2 type=rdonly_buf expected=fp, pkt, pkt_meta, map_value
Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 189 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
2 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/200587
branch
from
55a1c95 to
d48fede
Compare
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?series=200587 expired. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2021
[BUG] When running btrfs/027 with "-o compress" mount option, it always crashes with the following call trace: BTRFS critical (device dm-4): mapping failed logical 298901504 bio len 12288 len 8192 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:6651! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI CPU: 5 PID: 31089 Comm: kworker/u24:10 Tainted: G OE 5.13.0-rc2-custom+ #26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 Workqueue: btrfs-delalloc btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] RIP: 0010:btrfs_map_bio.cold+0x58/0x5a [btrfs] Call Trace: btrfs_submit_compressed_write+0x2d7/0x470 [btrfs] submit_compressed_extents+0x3b0/0x470 [btrfs] ? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x70 btrfs_work_helper+0x131/0x3e0 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x28f/0x5d0 worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0 ? process_one_work+0x5d0/0x5d0 kthread+0x141/0x160 ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x60/0x60 ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 ---[ end trace 63113a3a91f34e68 ]--- [CAUSE] The critical message before the crash means we have a bio at logical bytenr 298901504 length 12288, but only 8192 bytes can fit into one stripe, the remaining 4096 bytes go to another stripe. In btrfs, all bios are properly split to avoid cross stripe boundary, but commit 764c7c9 ("btrfs: zoned: fix parallel compressed writes") changed the behavior for compressed writes. Previously if we find our new page can't be fitted into current stripe, ie. "submit == 1" case, we submit current bio without adding current page. submit = btrfs_bio_fits_in_stripe(page, PAGE_SIZE, bio, 0); page->mapping = NULL; if (submit || bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0) < PAGE_SIZE) { But after the modification, we will add the page no matter if it crosses stripe boundary, leading to the above crash. submit = btrfs_bio_fits_in_stripe(page, PAGE_SIZE, bio, 0); if (pg_index == 0 && use_append) len = bio_add_zone_append_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); else len = bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0); page->mapping = NULL; if (submit || len < PAGE_SIZE) { [FIX] It's no longer possible to revert to the original code style as we have two different bio_add_*_page() calls now. The new fix is to skip the bio_add_*_page() call if @submit is true. Also to avoid @len to be uninitialized, always initialize it to zero. If @submit is true, @len will not be checked. If @submit is not true, @len will be the return value of bio_add_*_page() call. Either way, the behavior is still the same as the old code. Reported-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Fixes: 764c7c9 ("btrfs: zoned: fix parallel compressed writes") Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2021
To quote Alexey[1]:
I was adding custom tracepoint to the kernel, grabbed full F34 kernel
.config, disabled modules and booted whole shebang as VM kernel.
Then did
perf record -a -e ...
It crashed:
general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x435f5346592e4243: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
CPU: 1 PID: 842 Comm: cat Not tainted 5.12.6+ #26
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.14.0-1.fc33 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:t_show+0x22/0xd0
Then reproducer was narrowed to
# cat /sys/kernel/tracing/printk_formats
Original F34 kernel with modules didn't crash.
So I started to disable options and after disabling AFS everything
started working again.
The root cause is that AFS was placing char arrays content into a
section full of _pointers_ to strings with predictable consequences.
Non canonical address 435f5346592e4243 is "CB.YFS_" which came from
CM_NAME macro.
Steps to reproduce:
CONFIG_AFS=y
CONFIG_TRACING=y
# cat /sys/kernel/tracing/printk_formats
Fix this by the following means:
(1) Add enum->string translation tables in the event header with the AFS
and YFS cache/callback manager operations listed by RPC operation ID.
(2) Modify the afs_cb_call tracepoint to print the string from the
translation table rather than using the string at the afs_call name
pointer.
(3) Switch translation table depending on the service we're being accessed
as (AFS or YFS) in the tracepoint print clause. Will this cause
problems to userspace utilities?
Note that the symbolic representation of the YFS service ID isn't
available to this header, so I've put it in as a number. I'm not sure
if this is the best way to do this.
(4) Remove the name wrangling (CM_NAME) macro and put the names directly
into the afs_call_type structs in cmservice.c.
Fixes: 8e8d7f1 ("afs: Add some tracepoints")
Reported-by: Alexey Dobriyan (SK hynix) <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YLAXfvZ+rObEOdc%2F@localhost.localdomain/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/643721.1623754699@warthog.procyon.org.uk/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/162430903582.2896199.6098150063997983353.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # v1
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/162609463957.3133237.15916579353149746363.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # v1 (repost)
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/162610726860.3408253.445207609466288531.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # v2
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2021
The memory reserved by console/PALcode or non-volatile memory is not added to memblock.memory. Since commit fa3354e (mm: free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than zone sizes) the initialization of the memory map relies on the accuracy of memblock.memory to properly calculate zone sizes. The holes in memblock.memory caused by absent regions reserved by the firmware cause incorrect initialization of struct pages which leads to BUG() during the initial page freeing: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:2ffc53 page:fffffc000ecf14c0 refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 flags: 0x0() raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 page dumped because: nonzero mapcount Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.7.0-03841-gfa3354e4ea39-dirty #26 fffffc0001b5bd68 fffffc0001b5be80 fffffc00011cd148 fffffc000ecf14c0 fffffc00019803df fffffc0001b5be80 fffffc00011ce340 fffffc000ecf14c0 0000000000000000 fffffc0001b5be80 fffffc0001b482c0 fffffc00027d6618 fffffc00027da7d0 00000000002ff97a 0000000000000000 fffffc0001b5be80 fffffc00011d1abc fffffc000ecf14c0 fffffc0002d00000 fffffc0001b5be80 fffffc0001b2350c 0000000000300000 fffffc0001b48298 fffffc0001b482c0 Trace: [<fffffc00011cd148>] bad_page+0x168/0x1b0 [<fffffc00011ce340>] free_pcp_prepare+0x1e0/0x290 [<fffffc00011d1abc>] free_unref_page+0x2c/0xa0 [<fffffc00014ee5f0>] cmp_ex_sort+0x0/0x30 [<fffffc00014ee5f0>] cmp_ex_sort+0x0/0x30 [<fffffc000101001c>] _stext+0x1c/0x20 Fix this by registering the reserved ranges in memblock.memory. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210726192311.uffqnanxw3ac5wwi@ivybridge Fixes: fa3354e ("mm: free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than zone sizes") Reported-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2021
The perf_buffer fails on system with offline cpus: # test_progs -t perf_buffer test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_on_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:attach_kprobe 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buf__new 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:epoll_fd 0 nsec skipping offline CPU #24 skipping offline CPU #25 skipping offline CPU #26 skipping offline CPU #27 skipping offline CPU #28 skipping offline CPU #29 skipping offline CPU #30 skipping offline CPU #31 test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buffer__poll 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:seen_cpu_cnt 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:FAIL:buf_cnt got 24, expected 32 Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Changing the test to check online cpus instead of possible. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2021
The perf_buffer fails on system with offline cpus: # test_progs -t perf_buffer test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_on_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:attach_kprobe 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buf__new 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:epoll_fd 0 nsec skipping offline CPU #24 skipping offline CPU #25 skipping offline CPU #26 skipping offline CPU #27 skipping offline CPU #28 skipping offline CPU #29 skipping offline CPU #30 skipping offline CPU #31 test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buffer__poll 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:seen_cpu_cnt 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:FAIL:buf_cnt got 24, expected 32 Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Changing the test to check online cpus instead of possible. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2021
The perf_buffer fails on system with offline cpus: # test_progs -t perf_buffer test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_on_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:attach_kprobe 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buf__new 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:epoll_fd 0 nsec skipping offline CPU #24 skipping offline CPU #25 skipping offline CPU #26 skipping offline CPU #27 skipping offline CPU #28 skipping offline CPU #29 skipping offline CPU #30 skipping offline CPU #31 test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buffer__poll 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:seen_cpu_cnt 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:FAIL:buf_cnt got 24, expected 32 Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Changing the test to check online cpus instead of possible. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 20, 2021
The perf_buffer fails on system with offline cpus: # test_progs -t perf_buffer test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:nr_on_cpus 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:attach_kprobe 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buf__new 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:epoll_fd 0 nsec skipping offline CPU #24 skipping offline CPU #25 skipping offline CPU #26 skipping offline CPU #27 skipping offline CPU #28 skipping offline CPU #29 skipping offline CPU #30 skipping offline CPU #31 test_perf_buffer:PASS:perf_buffer__poll 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:PASS:seen_cpu_cnt 0 nsec test_perf_buffer:FAIL:buf_cnt got 24, expected 32 Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED Changing the test to check online cpus instead of possible. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: NipaLocal <nipa@local>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2024
Syzkaller reported this warning: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 16 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 16 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5 kernel-patches#26 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 Code: 24 12 4c 89 e2 5b 48 c7 c7 98 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 d1 18 17 ff 4c 89 e6 5b 48 c7 c7 d0 ec bb 82 41 5c e9 bf 18 17 ff 0f 0b eb 83 <0f> 0b eb 97 0f 0b eb 87 0f 0b e9 68 ff ff ff 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000008bd90 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000300 RBX: ffff88810b172a90 RCX: 0000000000000007 RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000000000300 RDI: ffff88810b172a00 RBP: ffff88810b172a00 R08: ffff888104273c00 R09: 0000000000100007 R10: 0000000000020000 R11: 0000000000000006 R12: ffff88810b172a00 R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888237c31f78 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888237c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffc63fecac8 CR3: 000000000342e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x88/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 ? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x1c5/0x1e0 __sk_destruct+0x2a/0x200 rcu_do_batch+0x1aa/0x530 ? rcu_do_batch+0x13b/0x530 rcu_core+0x159/0x2f0 handle_softirqs+0xd3/0x2b0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 run_ksoftirqd+0x25/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0xdd/0x1d0 kthread+0xd3/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Its possible that two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv()/sk_forward_alloc_add() concurrently when sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN with sk->sk_lock unlocked, which triggers a data-race around sk->sk_forward_alloc: tcp_v6_rcv tcp_v6_do_rcv skb_clone_and_charge_r sk_rmem_schedule __sk_mem_schedule sk_forward_alloc_add() skb_set_owner_r sk_mem_charge sk_forward_alloc_add() __kfree_skb skb_release_all skb_release_head_state sock_rfree sk_mem_uncharge sk_forward_alloc_add() sk_mem_reclaim // set local var reclaimable __sk_mem_reclaim sk_forward_alloc_add() In this syzkaller testcase, two threads call tcp_v6_do_rcv() with skb->truesize=768, the sk_forward_alloc changes like this: (cpu 1) | (cpu 2) | sk_forward_alloc ... | ... | 0 __sk_mem_schedule() | | +4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_schedule() | +4096 = 8192 sk_mem_charge() | | -768 = 7424 | sk_mem_charge() | -768 = 6656 ... | ... | sk_mem_uncharge() | | +768 = 7424 reclaimable=7424 | | | sk_mem_uncharge() | +768 = 8192 | reclaimable=8192 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | | -4096 = 4096 | __sk_mem_reclaim() | -8192 = -4096 != 0 The skb_clone_and_charge_r() should not be called in tcp_v6_do_rcv() when sk->sk_state is TCP_LISTEN, it happens later in tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(). Fix the same issue in dccp_v6_do_rcv(). Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Fixes: e994b2f ("tcp: do not lock listener to process SYN packets") Signed-off-by: Wang Liang <wangliang74@huawei.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241107023405.889239-1-wangliang74@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
kuba-moo
pushed a commit
to linux-netdev/testing-bpf-ci
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2024
This fixes the circular locking dependency warning below, by reworking iso_sock_recvmsg, to ensure that the socket lock is always released before calling a function that locks hdev. [ 561.670344] ====================================================== [ 561.670346] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 561.670349] 6.12.0-rc6+ kernel-patches#26 Not tainted [ 561.670351] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 561.670353] iso-tester/3289 is trying to acquire lock: [ 561.670355] ffff88811f600078 (&hdev->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: iso_conn_big_sync+0x73/0x260 [bluetooth] [ 561.670405] but task is already holding lock: [ 561.670407] ffff88815af58258 (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iso_sock_recvmsg+0xbf/0x500 [bluetooth] [ 561.670450] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 561.670452] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 561.670453] -> kernel-patches#2 (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){+.+.}-{0:0}: [ 561.670458] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xc0 [ 561.670463] lock_sock_nested+0x3b/0xf0 [ 561.670467] bt_accept_dequeue+0x1a5/0x4d0 [bluetooth] [ 561.670510] iso_sock_accept+0x271/0x830 [bluetooth] [ 561.670547] do_accept+0x3dd/0x610 [ 561.670550] __sys_accept4+0xd8/0x170 [ 561.670553] __x64_sys_accept+0x74/0xc0 [ 561.670556] x64_sys_call+0x17d6/0x25f0 [ 561.670559] do_syscall_64+0x87/0x150 [ 561.670563] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 561.670567] -> kernel-patches#1 (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_ISO){+.+.}-{0:0}: [ 561.670571] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xc0 [ 561.670574] lock_sock_nested+0x3b/0xf0 [ 561.670577] iso_sock_listen+0x2de/0xf30 [bluetooth] [ 561.670617] __sys_listen_socket+0xef/0x130 [ 561.670620] __x64_sys_listen+0xe1/0x190 [ 561.670623] x64_sys_call+0x2517/0x25f0 [ 561.670626] do_syscall_64+0x87/0x150 [ 561.670629] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 561.670632] -> #0 (&hdev->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 561.670636] __lock_acquire+0x32ad/0x6ab0 [ 561.670639] lock_acquire.part.0+0x118/0x360 [ 561.670642] lock_acquire+0x7c/0xc0 [ 561.670644] __mutex_lock+0x18d/0x12f0 [ 561.670647] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x30 [ 561.670651] iso_conn_big_sync+0x73/0x260 [bluetooth] [ 561.670687] iso_sock_recvmsg+0x3e9/0x500 [bluetooth] [ 561.670722] sock_recvmsg+0x1d5/0x240 [ 561.670725] sock_read_iter+0x27d/0x470 [ 561.670727] vfs_read+0x9a0/0xd30 [ 561.670731] ksys_read+0x1a8/0x250 [ 561.670733] __x64_sys_read+0x72/0xc0 [ 561.670736] x64_sys_call+0x1b12/0x25f0 [ 561.670738] do_syscall_64+0x87/0x150 [ 561.670741] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 561.670744] other info that might help us debug this: [ 561.670745] Chain exists of: &hdev->lock --> sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_ISO --> sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH [ 561.670751] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 561.670753] CPU0 CPU1 [ 561.670754] ---- ---- [ 561.670756] lock(sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH); [ 561.670758] lock(sk_lock AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_ISO); [ 561.670761] lock(sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH); [ 561.670764] lock(&hdev->lock); [ 561.670767] *** DEADLOCK *** Fixes: 07a9342 ("Bluetooth: ISO: Send BIG Create Sync via hci_sync") Signed-off-by: Iulia Tanasescu <iulia.tanasescu@nxp.com> Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@intel.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: Make check_func_arg type checks table driven
version: 2
url: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?series=200587