Re: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: call lock_sock() outside of spinlock section

[LinMa <linma@zju.edu.cn>]

> 
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> index b04a5a02ecf3..0525883f4639 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> @@ -759,19 +759,14 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *hdev, int event)
>  	if (event == HCI_DEV_UNREG) {
>  		struct sock *sk;
>  
> -		/* Detach sockets from device */
> +		/* Change socket state and notify */
>  		read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
>  		sk_for_each(sk, &hci_sk_list.head) {
> -			lock_sock(sk);
>  			if (hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
> -				hci_pi(sk)->hdev = NULL;
>  				sk->sk_err = EPIPE;
>  				sk->sk_state = BT_OPEN;
>  				sk->sk_state_change(sk);
> -
> -				hci_dev_put(hdev);
>  			}
> -			release_sock(sk);
>  		}
>  		read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
>  	}
> 
> ? I can't judge because I don't know how this works. I worry that
> without lock_sock()/release_sock(), this races with e.g. hci_sock_bind().
> 
> We could take away the backward goto if we can do something like below.
> 
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> index b04a5a02ecf3..1ca03769badf 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ static DEFINE_IDA(sock_cookie_ida);
>  
>  static atomic_t monitor_promisc = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>  
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sock_list_lock);
> +
>  /* ----- HCI socket interface ----- */
>  
>  /* Socket info */
> @@ -760,7 +762,7 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *hdev, int event)
>  		struct sock *sk;
>  
>  		/* Detach sockets from device */
> -		read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
> +		mutex_lock(&sock_list_lock);
>  		sk_for_each(sk, &hci_sk_list.head) {
>  			lock_sock(sk);
>  			if (hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
> @@ -773,7 +775,7 @@ void hci_sock_dev_event(struct hci_dev *hdev, int event)
>  			}
>  			release_sock(sk);
>  		}
> -		read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
> +		mutex_unlock(&sock_list_lock);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -838,6 +840,7 @@ static int hci_sock_release(struct socket *sock)
>  	if (!sk)
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&sock_list_lock);
>  	lock_sock(sk);
>  
>  	switch (hci_pi(sk)->channel) {
> @@ -860,6 +863,7 @@ static int hci_sock_release(struct socket *sock)
>  	}
>  
>  	bt_sock_unlink(&hci_sk_list, sk);
> +	mutex_unlock(&sock_list_lock);
>  
>  	hdev = hci_pi(sk)->hdev;
>  	if (hdev) {
> @@ -2049,7 +2053,9 @@ static int hci_sock_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
>  	sock->state = SS_UNCONNECTED;
>  	sk->sk_state = BT_OPEN;
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&sock_list_lock);
>  	bt_sock_link(&hci_sk_list, sk);
> +	mutex_unlock(&sock_list_lock);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> 
> >             It is also weird that this only manifests in the Bluetooth
> > HCI sockets or other subsystems don't use such locking mechanism
> > anymore?
> 

Hello Tetsuo,

Yeah, that's a great patch indeed. Add one extra mutex lock for handling this.
In fact, I have tried to replace all the hci_sk_list.lock from rwlock_t to mutext.

> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/patch/CAJjojJsj9pzF4j2MVvsM-hCpvyR7OkZn232yt3MdOGnLxOiRRg@mail.gmail.com/
> However, from the lock principle in the Linux kernel, this lock
> replacement is not appropriate. I take a lot of time to try with other
> lock combinations for this case but failed. For example, I tried to
> replace the rwlock_t in the hci_sk_list with a sleep-able mutex lock.

Because I have seem other part of code in kernel uses this combination: mutex_t + lock_sock. It shouldn't trigger any locking errors. (Will test it)

> Also, this regression is currently 7th top
> crashers for syzbot, and I'd like to apply this patch as soon as possible.
> 

XD, Yeah. Because the bug crash point is located at function hci_sock_dev_event(). Whenever syzkaller fuzzes Bluetooth stack and the executor exits, the crash happens.

> I think that this patch can serve as a response to Lin's comment

> > In short, I have no idea if there is any lock replacing solution for
> > this bug. I need help and suggestions because the lock mechanism is
> > just so difficult.

Thanks for that, it's quite appreciating.

Regards
Lin Ma