From: Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi>
To: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
Cc: marcel@holtmann.org, luiz.dentz@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Bluetooth: hci_core: add lockdep check to hci_conn lookups
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 14:19:00 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <108c76a0ee67b795dee6dccd713ebcd685fe33c7.camel@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2be38d111362590f45776a0bc114f7890906ead9.1786875148.git.pav@iki.fi>
su, 2026-08-16 kello 13:26 +0300, Pauli Virtanen kirjoitti:
> Add lockdep check for RCU || hdev->lock in hci_conn_hash lookups that
> return hci_conn pointer, as dereferencing that without locks can be
> TOCTOU issue. It used to be several callsites did not hold appropriate
> locks.
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/2be38d111362590f45776a0bc114f7890906ead9.1786875148.git.pav%40iki.fi
Sashiko review complains about HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK() added to
wrong functions.
It applied the patch to bluetooth/master, instead of bluetooth-
next/master as intended.
Apparently the patch applies with fuzz also to bluetooth/master, but
some of the added HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK land in wrong functions
there.
> The check is equivalent to removing rcu_read_lock() and doing instead
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list, lockdep_is_held(&hdev->lock))
> Although there should not be any remaining callsites without locks,
> don't remove the rcu_read_lock() for now, and just add the warning here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> resend:
> - no changes
>
> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> index 4105c446ca98..c12cd6873f65 100644
> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> @@ -1030,6 +1030,9 @@ static inline bool hci_conn_sc_enabled(struct hci_conn *conn)
> static inline void hci_conn_hash_add(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct hci_conn *c)
> {
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&hdev->lock);
> +
> list_add_tail_rcu(&c->list, &h->list);
> switch (c->type) {
> case ACL_LINK:
> @@ -1060,6 +1063,8 @@ static inline void hci_conn_hash_del(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct hci_conn *c)
> {
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
>
> + lockdep_assert_held(&hdev->lock);
> +
> list_del_rcu(&c->list);
> synchronize_rcu();
>
> @@ -1088,6 +1093,15 @@ static inline void hci_conn_hash_del(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct hci_conn *c)
> }
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> +#define HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev) \
> + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&(hdev)->lock) && \
> + !rcu_read_lock_held(), \
> + "suspicious hci_conn locking")
> +#else
> +#define HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev) do { } while (0 && (hdev))
> +#endif
> +
> static inline unsigned int hci_conn_num(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u8 type)
> {
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> @@ -1169,6 +1183,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_bis(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1191,6 +1207,8 @@ hci_conn_hash_lookup_create_pa_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1217,6 +1235,8 @@ hci_conn_hash_lookup_per_adv_bis(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1241,6 +1261,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_handle(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1260,6 +1282,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_ba(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1281,6 +1305,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_role(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1302,6 +1328,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_le(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1328,6 +1356,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_cis(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1360,6 +1390,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_cig(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1383,6 +1415,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_conn_hash_lookup_big(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1407,6 +1441,8 @@ hci_conn_hash_lookup_big_sync_pend(struct hci_dev *hdev,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1431,6 +1467,8 @@ hci_conn_hash_lookup_big_state(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u8 handle, __u16 state,
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1454,6 +1492,8 @@ hci_conn_hash_lookup_pa_sync_big_handle(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u8 big)
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1477,6 +1517,8 @@ hci_conn_hash_lookup_pa_sync_handle(struct hci_dev *hdev, __u16 sync_handle)
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
> @@ -1546,6 +1588,8 @@ static inline struct hci_conn *hci_lookup_le_connect(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> struct hci_conn_hash *h = &hdev->conn_hash;
> struct hci_conn *c;
>
> + HCI_CONN_HASH_LOCKDEP_CHECK(hdev);
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(c, &h->list, list) {
--
Pauli Virtanen
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-16 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-16 10:26 [PATCH RESEND] Bluetooth: hci_core: add lockdep check to hci_conn lookups Pauli Virtanen
2026-08-16 11:15 ` [RESEND] " bluez.test.bot
2026-08-16 11:19 ` Pauli Virtanen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=108c76a0ee67b795dee6dccd713ebcd685fe33c7.camel@iki.fi \
--to=pav@iki.fi \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox