From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793829100; b=Ymf071EMAZv5tSgJ/pE70TMleDncCk7Qoe8vdyK2zM3FqvtBF09Nrq3ImFlYEYoECkWp uo43/bsreKIKi93mhBf1Tuptn5ejErJQqHMjSBFVVYI3RPg+D+NnX9spL/+HQ8noMc7gm KroZKZMCxyKtf92+FjmbYHZurZTked4uURAwkZZwAU9ho7RPRNK3Ty38SqtlPy/djHcpG ipO6rEYB4u7uztKWae76w3sSFNCd8YZjeCAuiA+5M9BR3h0cY0VdORpGltO2FUGQVD/il pRFLXd/gV5UxhHifXH0AR8Sd4Jqndmt0ll+/pAJGXgYG4N1wMPvFwECx2Bi+cx5GhWA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793829100; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:X-Mailer: In-Reply-To:References:User-Agent:X-stable:X-Patchwork-Hint: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=GJY3ScZyBdWsEf/ssZdM6LHqzSAuR7ZwFf6FXvMAInk=; b=azICgfkcANJz8wPFYyN99JNy6LRWhRbX1ihMxBU73NoUyIk3gCFiWLm1gKz/0LLMUKXq SoljH2jZcEUVDxtotClxyMGBziwjTAqOAgFtEgYeUMmpAP6vuhXUOVSEAc3wLO5gIVWpX r/CFL3I/8ULMpaNk1Dt48iDdcA/CTkg7iOvO9TCGjzMgoeo47fNDjt5QupfjULz/9u8Zb 8E7HqlJ98bfyj5TjaZ9cpfzfs8jWvnxPrtxwmHUIicR+WBxbTo7/kr3DG6YHkAPXVrDE2 i67N8qFW3/9K8bqusax4lY6R4y6V6Vn1RGzSxO/Q4y3XHVzdPpwIEUOqXp5tuciIMVg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=korg header.b="Ls4wU/F0"; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03DBA6072FB3; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 21:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=korg header.b=Ls4wU/F0 Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DE041F000C1; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 21:51:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1793829099; bh=GJY3ScZyBdWsEf/ssZdM6LHqzSAuR7ZwFf6FXvMAInk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=Ls4wU/F0pdvj+EqUrhZpFGdX5fjQBJgFS8iXKNbPl+58yQ0pd/Cm4mDGr/nhfjZKl bCs/qlDUO1PMs74FP23eQpxj7OmVwx94jBm4ocFHKMV9XUG/X57OHdsdzgcSG5v+Di SNtPwxrlaRwrQI7zVzEW98X4nOE953GXm5yx+0gc= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, David Howells , Marc Dionne , Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH 7.3 446/547] rxrpc: Fix update of call->tx_pending without holding lock Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 16:10:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20261104211051.021424027@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.56.0 In-Reply-To: <20261104211038.406938024@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20261104211038.406938024@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.69 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 7.3-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: David Howells commit 7801c42c3bb737cfb06194a383873fcad8daacf5 upstream. Currently, rxrpc_send_data() updates call->tx_pending just before it returns - but it won't be holding the call->user_mutex when it does this if a wait was interrupted by a signal. This would allow a parallel sendmsg() to race. Further, both the callers of rxrpc_send_data() call it with the lock held, and then it returns an indication through the parameter list to say whether it has dropped the lock or not - after which the callers both just drop the lock if it's still held. Fix this by: (1) Moving the release of call->user_mutex down into rxrpc_send_data() and get rid of the indicator parameter. This makes it easier to see where the lock is held. (2) After waiting, if the attempt to reacquire the mutex is interrupted, just return directly there rather than going to out_unlock (3) Restricting the txb variable to inside the buffering loop and leaving ->tx_pending set until we've queued the buffer. Note that there's a slight change in behaviour in that wait_for_space failure now doesn't check for completion because it doesn't hold the call user_mutex. The caller, however, should re-issue the send and pick up any error at a second attempt. Fixes: b0f571ecd794 ("rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg") Closes: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260702144919.172295-1-dhowells%40redhat.com Signed-off-by: David Howells cc: Marc Dionne cc: Eric Dumazet cc: "David S. Miller" cc: Jakub Kicinski cc: Paolo Abeni cc: Simon Horman cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20261006133011.531806-4-dhowells@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) --- a/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c @@ -320,10 +320,9 @@ static int rxrpc_alloc_txqueue(struct so static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct rxrpc_call *call, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, - rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t notify_end_tx, - bool *_dropped_lock) + rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t notify_end_tx) + __releases(&call->user_mutex) { - struct rxrpc_txbuf *txb; struct sock *sk = &rx->sk; enum rxrpc_call_state state; long timeo; @@ -334,30 +333,26 @@ static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_ trace_rxrpc_abort(call->debug_id, rxrpc_sendmsg_late_send, call->cid, call->call_id, call->rx_consumed, 0, -EPROTO); - return -EPROTO; + ret = -EPROTO; + goto out_unlock; } timeo = sock_sndtimeo(sk, msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT); ret = rxrpc_wait_to_be_connected(call, &timeo); if (ret < 0) - return ret; + goto out_unlock; if (call->conn->state == RXRPC_CONN_CLIENT_UNSECURED) { ret = rxrpc_init_client_conn_security(call->conn); if (ret < 0) - return ret; + goto out_unlock; } /* this should be in poll */ sk_clear_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, sk); reload: - txb = call->tx_pending; - call->tx_pending = NULL; - if (txb) - rxrpc_see_txbuf(txb, rxrpc_txbuf_see_send_more); - ret = -EPIPE; if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) goto maybe_error; @@ -386,6 +381,8 @@ reload: } do { + struct rxrpc_txbuf *txb = call->tx_pending; + if (!txb) { size_t remain; @@ -411,6 +408,9 @@ reload: ret = -ENOMEM; goto maybe_error; } + call->tx_pending = txb; + } else { + rxrpc_see_txbuf(txb, rxrpc_txbuf_see_send_more); } _debug("append"); @@ -445,9 +445,9 @@ reload: ret = call->security->secure_packet(call, txb); if (ret < 0) - goto out; + goto out_unlock; rxrpc_queue_packet(rx, call, txb, notify_end_tx); - txb = NULL; + call->tx_pending = NULL; } } while (msg_data_left(msg) > 0); @@ -456,45 +456,46 @@ success: if (rxrpc_call_is_complete(call) && call->error < 0) ret = call->error; -out: - call->tx_pending = txb; +out_unlock: + mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); _leave(" = %d", ret); return ret; call_terminated: - rxrpc_put_txbuf(txb, rxrpc_txbuf_put_send_aborted); - _leave(" = %d", call->error); - return call->error; + ret = call->error; + goto out_unlock; maybe_error: if (copied) goto success; - goto out; + goto out_unlock; efault: ret = -EFAULT; - goto out; + goto out_unlock; wait_for_space: ret = -EAGAIN; if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT) goto maybe_error; mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); - *_dropped_lock = true; + ret = rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window(rx, call, &timeo, msg->msg_flags & MSG_WAITALL); if (ret < 0) - goto maybe_error; + goto out_nolock; if (call->interruptibility == RXRPC_INTERRUPTIBLE) { if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&call->user_mutex) < 0) { ret = sock_intr_errno(timeo); - goto maybe_error; + goto out_nolock; } } else { mutex_lock(&call->user_mutex); } - *_dropped_lock = false; goto reload; +out_nolock: + _leave(" = %d [intr]", ret); + return copied ?: ret; } /* @@ -660,7 +661,6 @@ rxrpc_new_client_call_for_sendmsg(struct int rxrpc_do_sendmsg(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) { struct rxrpc_call *call; - bool dropped_lock = false; int ret; struct rxrpc_send_params p = { @@ -769,16 +769,15 @@ int rxrpc_do_sendmsg(struct rxrpc_sock * ret = 0; break; case RXRPC_CMD_SEND_DATA: - ret = rxrpc_send_data(rx, call, msg, len, NULL, &dropped_lock); - break; + ret = rxrpc_send_data(rx, call, msg, len, NULL); + goto error_put; default: ret = -EINVAL; break; } out_put_unlock: - if (!dropped_lock) - mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); error_put: rxrpc_put_call(call, rxrpc_call_put_sendmsg); _leave(" = %d", ret); @@ -808,7 +807,6 @@ int rxrpc_kernel_send_data(struct socket struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t notify_end_tx) { - bool dropped_lock = false; int ret; _enter("{%d},", call->debug_id); @@ -819,12 +817,9 @@ int rxrpc_kernel_send_data(struct socket mutex_lock(&call->user_mutex); ret = rxrpc_send_data(rxrpc_sk(sock->sk), call, msg, len, - notify_end_tx, &dropped_lock); + notify_end_tx); if (ret == -ESHUTDOWN) ret = call->error; - - if (!dropped_lock) - mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex); _leave(" = %d", ret); return ret; }