Linux CAN drivers development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (7 more replies)
  0 siblings, 8 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can
  Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde, Lee Jones, Ginger,
	syzbot+75e5e4ae00c3b4bb544e, sashiko-reviews, sashiko-bot

Hi Marc,

as there were different patches flying arround to fix CAN_BCM issues and
AI assisted stuff pop's up again and again, I've created this collection
to be applied.

I'm not sure whether sashiko-bot takes the sequence of this series into
account when checking the last patches. So let's see.

Best regards,
Oliver

Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
Changes in v5:
- patch 6: changed comment for bcm_op::bcm_tx_lock (mkl)
- patch 8: new: add missing device refcount for CAN filter removal
- Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260707-bcm_fixes-v4-0-aa87b8b9d33f@hartkopp.net

Changes in v4:
- incorporated more sashiko-bot concerns from v3
- patch 3: omit hrtimer_forward with zero interval
- patch 4: put bcm_update_stats() under bcm_rx_update_lock
- Link to v3: https://patch.msgid.link/20260707-bcm_fixes-v3-0-84600ca6d889@hartkopp.net

Changes in v3:
- incorporated more sashiko-bot concerns from v2
- patch 3: make snapshot of currframe
- patch 6: add error patch for memcpy_from_msg()
- patch 7: new RTR-reply validation in bcm_rx_setup() from bcm_tx_setup() 
- Link to v2: https://patch.msgid.link/20260707-bcm_fixes-v2-0-96620c534b75@hartkopp.net

Changes in v2:
- incorporated all sashiko-bot concerns from v1
- Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20260612-bcm_fixes-v1-0-ca2fa07ee70f@hartkopp.net

---
Lee Jones (1):
      can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF

Oliver Hartkopp (7):
      can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure
      can: bcm: add locking when updating filter and timer values
      can: bcm: fix CAN frame rx/tx statistics
      can: bcm: add missing rcu list annotations and operations
      can: bcm: extend bcm_tx_lock usage for data and timer updates
      can: bcm: validate frame length in bcm_rx_setup() for RTR replies
      can: bcm: add missing device refcount for CAN filter removal

 net/can/bcm.c | 476 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 351 insertions(+), 125 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 0e35b9b6ec0ffcc5e23cbdec09f5c622ad532b53
change-id: 20260612-bcm_fixes-84fb4aa93ac2

Best regards,
--  
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:18   ` sashiko-bot
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde, Lee Jones

From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>

Commit f1b4e32aca08 ("can: bcm: use call_rcu() instead of costly
synchronize_rcu()") replaced synchronize_rcu() in bcm_delete_rx_op()
with call_rcu() and introduced the RX_NO_AUTOTIMER flag.

However, this flag check was omitted for thrtimer in the packet rx
fast-path. During BCM RX operation teardown, a concurrent RCU reader
(bcm_rx_handler) can race and re-arm thrtimer via
bcm_rx_update_and_send() after call_rcu() has been scheduled.  Once
the RCU grace period elapses, bcm_op is freed.  The subsequently
firing thrtimer then dereferences the deallocated op, causing a UAF.

Adding flag checks to the rx fast-path (bcm_rx_update_and_send) does not
fully close the TOCTOU race and introduces latency for every CAN frame.
Conversely, calling hrtimer_cancel() directly inside the RCU callback
(softirq context) is fatal as hrtimer_cancel() can sleep, triggering
a "scheduling while atomic" panic.

Resolve this by deferring the timer cancellation and memory free to a
dedicated unbound workqueue (bcm_wq).  The RCU callback now queues a
work item to bcm_wq, which safely cancels both timers and deallocates
memory in sleepable process context.  A dedicated workqueue is used to
prevent system-wide WQ saturation and is cleanly flushed/destroyed
on module unload to avoid rmmod page faults.

Since the deferred work can now outlive the calling context by an
unbounded amount, also take a reference on op->sk when it is assigned
and drop it only once the deferred work has cancelled both timers, so a
socket can no longer be freed out from under a still-armed timer whose
callback (bcm_send_to_user()) dereferences op->sk.

Fixes: f1b4e32aca08 ("can: bcm: use call_rcu() instead of costly synchronize_rcu()")
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index a4bef2c48a55..bdf53241bd7b 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -56,10 +56,11 @@
 #include <linux/can.h>
 #include <linux/can/core.h>
 #include <linux/can/skb.h>
 #include <linux/can/bcm.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/workqueue.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <net/can.h>
 #include <net/sock.h>
 #include <net/net_namespace.h>
 
@@ -90,10 +91,12 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>");
 MODULE_ALIAS("can-proto-2");
 
 #define BCM_MIN_NAMELEN CAN_REQUIRED_SIZE(struct sockaddr_can, can_ifindex)
 
+static struct workqueue_struct *bcm_wq;
+
 /*
  * easy access to the first 64 bit of can(fd)_frame payload. cp->data is
  * 64 bit aligned so the offset has to be multiples of 8 which is ensured
  * by the only callers in bcm_rx_cmp_to_index() bcm_rx_handler().
  */
@@ -103,10 +106,11 @@ static inline u64 get_u64(const struct canfd_frame *cp, int offset)
 }
 
 struct bcm_op {
 	struct list_head list;
 	struct rcu_head rcu;
+	struct work_struct work;
 	int ifindex;
 	canid_t can_id;
 	u32 flags;
 	unsigned long frames_abs, frames_filtered;
 	struct bcm_timeval ival1, ival2;
@@ -791,23 +795,40 @@ static struct bcm_op *bcm_find_op(struct list_head *ops,
 	}
 
 	return NULL;
 }
 
-static void bcm_free_op_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
+static void bcm_free_op_work(struct work_struct *work)
 {
-	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(rcu_head, struct bcm_op, rcu);
+	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(work, struct bcm_op, work);
+
+	hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
+	hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
 
 	if ((op->frames) && (op->frames != &op->sframe))
 		kfree(op->frames);
 
 	if ((op->last_frames) && (op->last_frames != &op->last_sframe))
 		kfree(op->last_frames);
 
+	/* the last possible access to op->timer/op->thrtimer has now
+	 * happened above via hrtimer_cancel() - op->sk is no longer
+	 * needed by any pending timer callback, so drop our reference
+	 */
+	sock_put(op->sk);
+
 	kfree(op);
 }
 
+static void bcm_free_op_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
+{
+	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(rcu_head, struct bcm_op, rcu);
+
+	INIT_WORK(&op->work, bcm_free_op_work);
+	queue_work(bcm_wq, &op->work);
+}
+
 static void bcm_remove_op(struct bcm_op *op)
 {
 	hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
 	hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
 
@@ -1058,10 +1079,11 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		/* tx_ops never compare with previous received messages */
 		op->last_frames = NULL;
 
 		/* bcm_can_tx / bcm_tx_timeout_handler needs this */
 		op->sk = sk;
+		sock_hold(sk);
 		op->ifindex = ifindex;
 
 		/* initialize uninitialized (kzalloc) structure */
 		hrtimer_setup(&op->timer, bcm_tx_timeout_handler, CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
 			      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT);
@@ -1219,10 +1241,11 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 			}
 		}
 
 		/* bcm_can_tx / bcm_tx_timeout_handler needs this */
 		op->sk = sk;
+		sock_hold(sk);
 		op->ifindex = ifindex;
 
 		/* ifindex for timeout events w/o previous frame reception */
 		op->rx_ifindex = ifindex;
 
@@ -1837,15 +1860,19 @@ static struct notifier_block canbcm_notifier = {
 
 static int __init bcm_module_init(void)
 {
 	int err;
 
+	bcm_wq = alloc_workqueue("can-bcm-wq", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
+	if (!bcm_wq)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
 	pr_info("can: broadcast manager protocol\n");
 
 	err = register_pernet_subsys(&canbcm_pernet_ops);
 	if (err)
-		return err;
+		goto register_pernet_failed;
 
 	err = register_netdevice_notifier(&canbcm_notifier);
 	if (err)
 		goto register_notifier_failed;
 
@@ -1859,17 +1886,21 @@ static int __init bcm_module_init(void)
 
 register_proto_failed:
 	unregister_netdevice_notifier(&canbcm_notifier);
 register_notifier_failed:
 	unregister_pernet_subsys(&canbcm_pernet_ops);
+register_pernet_failed:
+	destroy_workqueue(bcm_wq);
 	return err;
 }
 
 static void __exit bcm_module_exit(void)
 {
 	can_proto_unregister(&bcm_can_proto);
 	unregister_netdevice_notifier(&canbcm_notifier);
 	unregister_pernet_subsys(&canbcm_pernet_ops);
+	rcu_barrier();
+	destroy_workqueue(bcm_wq);
 }
 
 module_init(bcm_module_init);
 module_exit(bcm_module_exit);

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:16   ` sashiko-bot
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] can: bcm: add locking when updating filter and timer values Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde, Ginger

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

bcm_sendmsg() reads bo->ifindex and checks bo->bound before taking
lock_sock(), while bcm_notify(), bcm_connect() and bcm_release() all
mutate both fields under that same lock. Because the lockless reads
and the locked writes are unordered with respect to each other, a
racing bcm_notify() (device unregister) or bcm_connect() (concurrent
bind on another thread sharing the socket) can make bcm_sendmsg()
observe an inconsistent combination, e.g. a stale bound=1 together
with the now-cleared ifindex=0, silently turning a socket bound to a
specific CAN interface into one that also matches "any" interface.

Keep the lockless bo->bound check purely as a fast-path reject, and
move the ifindex read (and a bo->bound re-check) into the locked
section, where every writer already serializes. This removes the
possibility of observing the two fields torn against each other,
rather than trying to fix it with more READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() pairs
on two independently updated fields. Annotate the now-purely-lockless
bo->bound accesses consistently across all its write sites.

Also fix bcm_rx_setup() silently returning success when the target
device disappears concurrently instead of reporting -ENODEV, so a
broken RX op is no longer left registered as if it had succeeded.

Reported-by: Ginger <ginger.jzllee@gmail.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/CAGp+u1aBK8QVjsvAxM2Ldzep4rEbsP9x_pV3At4g=h1kVEtyhA@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index bdf53241bd7b..b612135b017d 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -1321,10 +1321,15 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 						      bcm_rx_handler, op,
 						      "bcm", sk);
 
 				op->rx_reg_dev = dev;
 				dev_put(dev);
+			} else {
+				/* the requested device is gone - do not
+				 * silently succeed without registering
+				 */
+				err = -ENODEV;
 			}
 
 		} else
 			err = can_rx_register(sock_net(sk), NULL, op->can_id,
 					      REGMASK(op->can_id),
@@ -1394,16 +1399,17 @@ static int bcm_tx_send(struct msghdr *msg, int ifindex, struct sock *sk,
  */
 static int bcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
 {
 	struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
 	struct bcm_sock *bo = bcm_sk(sk);
-	int ifindex = bo->ifindex; /* default ifindex for this bcm_op */
+	int ifindex;
 	struct bcm_msg_head msg_head;
 	int cfsiz;
 	int ret; /* read bytes or error codes as return value */
 
-	if (!bo->bound)
+	/* Lockless fast-path check for bound socket */
+	if (!READ_ONCE(bo->bound))
 		return -ENOTCONN;
 
 	/* check for valid message length from userspace */
 	if (size < MHSIZ)
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -1415,43 +1421,65 @@ static int bcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
 
 	cfsiz = CFSIZ(msg_head.flags);
 	if ((size - MHSIZ) % cfsiz)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
+	lock_sock(sk);
+
+	/* Re-validate under the socket lock: a concurrent bcm_notify()
+	 * may have unbound this socket (device removal) after the
+	 * lockless fast-path check above. bo->ifindex is only ever
+	 * mutated under lock_sock(), so reading it here - instead of
+	 * before taking the lock - guarantees it can't be observed
+	 * torn against bo->bound.
+	 */
+	if (!bo->bound) {
+		ret = -ENOTCONN;
+		goto out_release;
+	}
+
+	/* default ifindex for this bcm_op */
+	ifindex = bo->ifindex;
+
 	/* check for alternative ifindex for this bcm_op */
 
 	if (!ifindex && msg->msg_name) {
 		/* no bound device as default => check msg_name */
 		DECLARE_SOCKADDR(struct sockaddr_can *, addr, msg->msg_name);
 
-		if (msg->msg_namelen < BCM_MIN_NAMELEN)
-			return -EINVAL;
+		if (msg->msg_namelen < BCM_MIN_NAMELEN) {
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+			goto out_release;
+		}
 
-		if (addr->can_family != AF_CAN)
-			return -EINVAL;
+		if (addr->can_family != AF_CAN) {
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+			goto out_release;
+		}
 
 		/* ifindex from sendto() */
 		ifindex = addr->can_ifindex;
 
 		if (ifindex) {
 			struct net_device *dev;
 
 			dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(sk), ifindex);
-			if (!dev)
-				return -ENODEV;
+			if (!dev) {
+				ret = -ENODEV;
+				goto out_release;
+			}
 
 			if (dev->type != ARPHRD_CAN) {
 				dev_put(dev);
-				return -ENODEV;
+				ret = -ENODEV;
+				goto out_release;
 			}
 
 			dev_put(dev);
 		}
 	}
 
-	lock_sock(sk);
-
 	switch (msg_head.opcode) {
 
 	case TX_SETUP:
 		ret = bcm_tx_setup(&msg_head, msg, ifindex, sk);
 		break;
@@ -1497,10 +1525,11 @@ static int bcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
 	default:
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		break;
 	}
 
+out_release:
 	release_sock(sk);
 
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -1533,11 +1562,16 @@ static void bcm_notify(struct bcm_sock *bo, unsigned long msg,
 			if (sock_net(sk)->can.bcmproc_dir && bo->bcm_proc_read) {
 				remove_proc_entry(bo->procname, sock_net(sk)->can.bcmproc_dir);
 				bo->bcm_proc_read = NULL;
 			}
 #endif
-			bo->bound   = 0;
+			/* Paired with the lockless fast-path check in
+			 * bcm_sendmsg(); bo->ifindex itself is only ever
+			 * accessed under lock_sock() so it needs no
+			 * annotation.
+			 */
+			WRITE_ONCE(bo->bound, 0);
 			bo->ifindex = 0;
 			notify_enodev = 1;
 		}
 
 		release_sock(sk);
@@ -1674,11 +1708,11 @@ static int bcm_release(struct socket *sock)
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, &bo->rx_ops, list)
 		bcm_remove_op(op);
 
 	/* remove device reference */
 	if (bo->bound) {
-		bo->bound   = 0;
+		WRITE_ONCE(bo->bound, 0);
 		bo->ifindex = 0;
 	}
 
 	sock_orphan(sk);
 	sock->sk = NULL;
@@ -1744,11 +1778,14 @@ static int bcm_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr_unsized *uaddr, int
 			goto fail;
 		}
 	}
 #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
 
-	bo->bound = 1;
+	/* bo->ifindex above is fully assigned before this point; pairs
+	 * with the lockless fast-path check in bcm_sendmsg()
+	 */
+	WRITE_ONCE(bo->bound, 1);
 
 fail:
 	release_sock(sk);
 
 	return ret;

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 3/8] can: bcm: add locking when updating filter and timer values
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] can: bcm: fix CAN frame rx/tx statistics Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde, syzbot+75e5e4ae00c3b4bb544e

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

KCSAN detected a simultaneous access to timer values that can be
overwritten in bcm_rx_setup() when updating timer and filter content
while bcm_rx_handler(), bcm_rx_timeout_handler() or bcm_rx_thr_handler()
run concurrently on incoming CAN traffic.

Protect the timer (ival1/ival2/kt_ival1/kt_ival2/kt_lastmsg) and filter
(nframes/flags/frames/last_frames) updates in bcm_rx_setup() with a new
per-op bcm_rx_update_lock, taken with the matching scope in the RX
handlers. memcpy_from_msg() is staged into a temporary buffer before the
lock is taken, since it can sleep and must not run under a spinlock.

hrtimer_cancel() is always called without bcm_rx_update_lock held, since
bcm_rx_timeout_handler()/bcm_rx_thr_handler() take the same lock and a
running callback would otherwise deadlock against the canceller.

Also close a related race: bcm_rx_setup() cleared the RTR flag in the
stored reply frame's can_id as a separate, unprotected step after the
frame content was already installed, so a concurrent bcm_rx_handler()
could transmit a stale reply with CAN_RTR_FLAG still set. Fold that
normalization into the initial frame preparation instead (on the staged
buffer for updates, directly on op->frames pre-registration for new
ops), so the installed frame is always atomically self-consistent.

bcm_rx_handler()'s RX_RTR_FRAME check now takes a lock-protected
snapshot of op->flags before deciding whether to call bcm_can_tx(),
but does not hold the lock across that call: CAN loopback on
echo-capable interfaces (e.g. vcan) can deliver the transmitted skb
back into bcm_rx_handler() synchronously from within dev_queue_xmit(),
which would self-deadlock on the per-op lock if it were still held.

Also take a lock-protected snapshot of the currframe in bcm_can_tx()
to avoid partly overwrites by content updates in bcm_tx_setup().

Omit calling hrtimer_forward() with zero interval in bcm_rx_thr_handler().
kt_ival2 may have been concurrently cleared by bcm_rx_setup() before it
cancels this timer, so check kt_ival2 inside the bcm_rx_update_lock.

Fixes: c2aba69d0c36 ("can: bcm: add locking for bcm_op runtime updates")
Reported-by: syzbot+75e5e4ae00c3b4bb544e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/6975d5cf.a00a0220.33ccc7.0022.GAE@google.com/
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index b612135b017d..b9b6f1b7bb03 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -127,10 +127,11 @@ struct bcm_op {
 	struct canfd_frame sframe;
 	struct canfd_frame last_sframe;
 	struct sock *sk;
 	struct net_device *rx_reg_dev;
 	spinlock_t bcm_tx_lock; /* protect currframe/count in runtime updates */
+	spinlock_t bcm_rx_update_lock; /* protect filter/timer data updates */
 };
 
 struct bcm_sock {
 	struct sock sk;
 	int bound;
@@ -291,26 +292,30 @@ static int bcm_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 /*
  * bcm_can_tx - send the (next) CAN frame to the appropriate CAN interface
  *              of the given bcm tx op
  */
-static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op)
+static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op, struct canfd_frame *cf)
 {
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
 	struct can_skb_ext *csx;
 	struct net_device *dev;
-	struct canfd_frame *cf;
+	struct canfd_frame cframe;
 	int err;
 
 	/* no target device? => exit */
 	if (!op->ifindex)
 		return;
 
-	/* read currframe under lock protection */
-	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
-	cf = op->frames + op->cfsiz * op->currframe;
-	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+	if (!cf) {
+		/* read currframe under lock protection */
+		spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+		memcpy(&cframe, op->frames + op->cfsiz * op->currframe,
+		       op->cfsiz);
+		cf = &cframe;
+		spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+	}
 
 	dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(op->sk), op->ifindex);
 	if (!dev) {
 		/* RFC: should this bcm_op remove itself here? */
 		return;
@@ -459,11 +464,11 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_tx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 {
 	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(hrtimer, struct bcm_op, timer);
 	struct bcm_msg_head msg_head;
 
 	if (op->kt_ival1 && (op->count > 0)) {
-		bcm_can_tx(op);
+		bcm_can_tx(op, NULL);
 		if (!op->count && (op->flags & TX_COUNTEVT)) {
 
 			/* create notification to user */
 			memset(&msg_head, 0, sizeof(msg_head));
 			msg_head.opcode  = TX_EXPIRED;
@@ -476,11 +481,11 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_tx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 
 			bcm_send_to_user(op, &msg_head, NULL, 0);
 		}
 
 	} else if (op->kt_ival2) {
-		bcm_can_tx(op);
+		bcm_can_tx(op, NULL);
 	}
 
 	return bcm_tx_set_expiry(op, &op->timer) ?
 		HRTIMER_RESTART : HRTIMER_NORESTART;
 }
@@ -620,10 +625,12 @@ static void bcm_rx_starttimer(struct bcm_op *op)
 static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_rx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 {
 	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(hrtimer, struct bcm_op, timer);
 	struct bcm_msg_head msg_head;
 
+	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
 	/* if user wants to be informed, when cyclic CAN-Messages come back */
 	if ((op->flags & RX_ANNOUNCE_RESUME) && op->last_frames) {
 		/* clear received CAN frames to indicate 'nothing received' */
 		memset(op->last_frames, 0, op->nframes * op->cfsiz);
 	}
@@ -636,10 +643,12 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_rx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 	msg_head.ival1   = op->ival1;
 	msg_head.ival2   = op->ival2;
 	msg_head.can_id  = op->can_id;
 	msg_head.nframes = 0;
 
+	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
 	bcm_send_to_user(op, &msg_head, NULL, 0);
 
 	return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
 }
 
@@ -684,30 +693,43 @@ static int bcm_rx_thr_flush(struct bcm_op *op)
  *                      Check for throttled data and send it to the userspace
  */
 static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_rx_thr_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 {
 	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(hrtimer, struct bcm_op, thrtimer);
+	enum hrtimer_restart ret;
+
+	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 
-	if (bcm_rx_thr_flush(op)) {
+	/* kt_ival2 may have been concurrently cleared by bcm_rx_setup()
+	 * before it cancels this timer - never forward with a zero
+	 * interval in that case.
+	 */
+	if (bcm_rx_thr_flush(op) && op->kt_ival2) {
 		hrtimer_forward_now(hrtimer, op->kt_ival2);
-		return HRTIMER_RESTART;
+		ret = HRTIMER_RESTART;
 	} else {
 		/* rearm throttle handling */
 		op->kt_lastmsg = 0;
-		return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
+		ret = HRTIMER_NORESTART;
 	}
+
+	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 /*
  * bcm_rx_handler - handle a CAN frame reception
  */
 static void bcm_rx_handler(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data)
 {
 	struct bcm_op *op = (struct bcm_op *)data;
 	const struct canfd_frame *rxframe = (struct canfd_frame *)skb->data;
+	struct canfd_frame rtrframe;
 	unsigned int i;
 	unsigned char traffic_flags;
+	bool rtr_frame;
 
 	if (op->can_id != rxframe->can_id)
 		return;
 
 	/* make sure to handle the correct frame type (CAN / CAN FD) */
@@ -727,13 +749,25 @@ static void bcm_rx_handler(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data)
 	/* save originator for recvfrom() */
 	op->rx_ifindex = skb->dev->ifindex;
 	/* update statistics */
 	op->frames_abs++;
 
-	if (op->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME) {
+	/* snapshot the flag under lock: op->flags/op->frames may be updated
+	 * concurrently by bcm_rx_setup(). Do not call bcm_can_tx() while
+	 * holding bcm_rx_update_lock: CAN loopback on echo-capable
+	 * interfaces (e.g. vcan) can deliver the transmitted skb back into
+	 * bcm_rx_handler() synchronously from within dev_queue_xmit().
+	 */
+	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+	rtr_frame = op->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME;
+	if (rtr_frame)
+		memcpy(&rtrframe, op->frames, op->cfsiz);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
+	if (rtr_frame) {
 		/* send reply for RTR-request (placed in op->frames[0]) */
-		bcm_can_tx(op);
+		bcm_can_tx(op, &rtrframe);
 		return;
 	}
 
 	/* compute flags to distinguish between own/local/remote CAN traffic */
 	traffic_flags = 0;
@@ -741,10 +775,12 @@ static void bcm_rx_handler(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data)
 		traffic_flags |= RX_LOCAL;
 		if (skb->sk == op->sk)
 			traffic_flags |= RX_OWN;
 	}
 
+	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
 	if (op->flags & RX_FILTER_ID) {
 		/* the easiest case */
 		bcm_rx_update_and_send(op, op->last_frames, rxframe,
 				       traffic_flags);
 		goto rx_starttimer;
@@ -776,10 +812,12 @@ static void bcm_rx_handler(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data)
 		}
 	}
 
 rx_starttimer:
 	bcm_rx_starttimer(op);
+
+	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 }
 
 /*
  * helpers for bcm_op handling: find & delete bcm [rx|tx] op elements
  */
@@ -1114,11 +1152,11 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		/* spec: send CAN frame when starting timer */
 		op->flags |= TX_ANNOUNCE;
 	}
 
 	if (op->flags & TX_ANNOUNCE)
-		bcm_can_tx(op);
+		bcm_can_tx(op, NULL);
 
 	if (op->flags & STARTTIMER)
 		bcm_tx_start_timer(op);
 
 	return msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz + MHSIZ;
@@ -1128,10 +1166,28 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		kfree(op->frames);
 	kfree(op);
 	return err;
 }
 
+static void bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head,
+				   struct bcm_op *op, void *new_frames)
+{
+	/* funny feature in RX(!)_SETUP only for RTR-mode:
+	 * copy can_id into frame BUT without RTR-flag to
+	 * prevent a full-load-loopback-test ... ;-]
+	 * normalize this on the staged buffer, before it is
+	 * ever installed into op->frames.
+	 */
+	if (msg_head->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME) {
+		struct canfd_frame *frame0 = new_frames;
+
+		if ((msg_head->flags & TX_CP_CAN_ID) ||
+		    frame0->can_id == op->can_id)
+			frame0->can_id = op->can_id & ~CAN_RTR_FLAG;
+	}
+}
+
 /*
  * bcm_rx_setup - create or update a bcm rx op (for bcm_sendmsg)
  */
 static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 			int ifindex, struct sock *sk)
@@ -1162,10 +1218,12 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* check the given can_id */
 	op = bcm_find_op(&bo->rx_ops, msg_head, ifindex);
 	if (op) {
+		void *new_frames = NULL;
+
 		/* update existing BCM operation */
 
 		/*
 		 * Do we need more space for the CAN frames than currently
 		 * allocated? -> This is a _really_ unusual use-case and
@@ -1173,33 +1231,55 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		 */
 		if (msg_head->nframes > op->nframes)
 			return -E2BIG;
 
 		if (msg_head->nframes) {
-			/* update CAN frames content */
-			err = memcpy_from_msg(op->frames, msg,
+			/* get new CAN frames content before locking */
+			new_frames = kmalloc(msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz,
+					     GFP_KERNEL);
+			if (!new_frames)
+				return -ENOMEM;
+
+			err = memcpy_from_msg(new_frames, msg,
 					      msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
-			if (err < 0)
+			if (err < 0) {
+				kfree(new_frames);
 				return err;
+			}
 
-			/* clear last_frames to indicate 'nothing received' */
-			memset(op->last_frames, 0, msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
+			bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(msg_head, op, new_frames);
 		}
 
+		spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 		op->nframes = msg_head->nframes;
 		op->flags = msg_head->flags;
 
+		if (msg_head->nframes) {
+			/* update CAN frames content */
+			memcpy(op->frames, new_frames,
+			       msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
+
+			/* clear last_frames to indicate 'nothing received' */
+			memset(op->last_frames, 0,
+			       msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
+		}
+		spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
+		/* free temporary frames / kfree(NULL) is safe */
+		kfree(new_frames);
+
 		/* Only an update -> do not call can_rx_register() */
 		do_rx_register = 0;
 
 	} else {
 		/* insert new BCM operation for the given can_id */
 		op = kzalloc(OPSIZ, GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!op)
 			return -ENOMEM;
 
 		spin_lock_init(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+		spin_lock_init(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 		op->can_id = msg_head->can_id;
 		op->nframes = msg_head->nframes;
 		op->cfsiz = CFSIZ(msg_head->flags);
 		op->flags = msg_head->flags;
 
@@ -1237,10 +1317,12 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 				if (op->last_frames != &op->last_sframe)
 					kfree(op->last_frames);
 				kfree(op);
 				return err;
 			}
+
+			bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(msg_head, op, op->frames);
 		}
 
 		/* bcm_can_tx / bcm_tx_timeout_handler needs this */
 		op->sk = sk;
 		sock_hold(sk);
@@ -1264,45 +1346,38 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 	} /* if ((op = bcm_find_op(&bo->rx_ops, msg_head->can_id, ifindex))) */
 
 	/* check flags */
 
 	if (op->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME) {
-		struct canfd_frame *frame0 = op->frames;
-
 		/* no timers in RTR-mode */
 		hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
 		hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
-
-		/*
-		 * funny feature in RX(!)_SETUP only for RTR-mode:
-		 * copy can_id into frame BUT without RTR-flag to
-		 * prevent a full-load-loopback-test ... ;-]
-		 */
-		if ((op->flags & TX_CP_CAN_ID) ||
-		    (frame0->can_id == op->can_id))
-			frame0->can_id = op->can_id & ~CAN_RTR_FLAG;
-
 	} else {
 		if (op->flags & SETTIMER) {
 
 			/* set timer value */
+			spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 			op->ival1 = msg_head->ival1;
 			op->ival2 = msg_head->ival2;
 			op->kt_ival1 = bcm_timeval_to_ktime(msg_head->ival1);
 			op->kt_ival2 = bcm_timeval_to_ktime(msg_head->ival2);
+			op->kt_lastmsg = 0;
+			spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 
 			/* disable an active timer due to zero value? */
 			if (!op->kt_ival1)
 				hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
 
 			/*
 			 * In any case cancel the throttle timer, flush
 			 * potentially blocked msgs and reset throttle handling
 			 */
-			op->kt_lastmsg = 0;
 			hrtimer_cancel(&op->thrtimer);
+
+			spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 			bcm_rx_thr_flush(op);
+			spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 		}
 
 		if ((op->flags & STARTTIMER) && op->kt_ival1)
 			hrtimer_start(&op->timer, op->kt_ival1,
 				      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT);

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 4/8] can: bcm: fix CAN frame rx/tx statistics
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] can: bcm: add locking when updating filter and timer values Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] can: bcm: add missing rcu list annotations and operations Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

KCSAN detected a data race within the bcm_rx_handler() when two CAN frames
have been simultaneously received and processed in a single rx op by two
different CPUs.

Use atomic operations with (signed) long data types to access the
statistics in the hot path to fix the KCSAN complaint.

Additionally simplify the update and check of statistics overflow by
using the atomic operations in a separate bcm_update_stats() function and
put this function under bcm_rx_update_lock to prevent races when resetting
the counters.

Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index b9b6f1b7bb03..0b53dbb64dd1 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ struct bcm_op {
 	struct rcu_head rcu;
 	struct work_struct work;
 	int ifindex;
 	canid_t can_id;
 	u32 flags;
-	unsigned long frames_abs, frames_filtered;
+	atomic_long_t frames_abs, frames_filtered;
 	struct bcm_timeval ival1, ival2;
 	struct hrtimer timer, thrtimer;
 	ktime_t rx_stamp, kt_ival1, kt_ival2, kt_lastmsg;
 	int rx_ifindex;
 	int cfsiz;
@@ -227,14 +227,17 @@ static int bcm_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 
 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(op, &bo->rx_ops, list) {
 
-		unsigned long reduction;
+		long reduction, frames_filtered, frames_abs;
+
+		frames_filtered = atomic_long_read(&op->frames_filtered);
+		frames_abs = atomic_long_read(&op->frames_abs);
 
 		/* print only active entries & prevent division by zero */
-		if (!op->frames_abs)
+		if (!frames_abs)
 			continue;
 
 		seq_printf(m, "rx_op: %03X %-5s ", op->can_id,
 			   bcm_proc_getifname(net, ifname, op->ifindex));
 
@@ -252,13 +255,13 @@ static int bcm_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 		if (op->kt_ival2)
 			seq_printf(m, "thr=%lld ",
 				   (long long)ktime_to_us(op->kt_ival2));
 
 		seq_printf(m, "# recv %ld (%ld) => reduction: ",
-			   op->frames_filtered, op->frames_abs);
+			   frames_filtered, frames_abs);
 
-		reduction = 100 - (op->frames_filtered * 100) / op->frames_abs;
+		reduction = 100 - (frames_filtered * 100) / frames_abs;
 
 		seq_printf(m, "%s%ld%%\n",
 			   (reduction == 100) ? "near " : "", reduction);
 	}
 
@@ -278,20 +281,30 @@ static int bcm_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 		if (op->kt_ival2)
 			seq_printf(m, "t2=%lld ",
 				   (long long)ktime_to_us(op->kt_ival2));
 
-		seq_printf(m, "# sent %ld\n", op->frames_abs);
+		seq_printf(m, "# sent %ld\n",
+			   atomic_long_read(&op->frames_abs));
 	}
 	seq_putc(m, '\n');
 
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	return 0;
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
 
+static void bcm_update_stats(struct bcm_op *op)
+{
+	/* prevent statistics overflow */
+	if (atomic_long_inc_return(&op->frames_abs) > LONG_MAX / 100) {
+		atomic_long_set(&op->frames_filtered, 0);
+		atomic_long_set(&op->frames_abs, 0);
+	}
+}
+
 /*
  * bcm_can_tx - send the (next) CAN frame to the appropriate CAN interface
  *              of the given bcm tx op
  */
 static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op, struct canfd_frame *cf)
@@ -342,11 +355,11 @@ static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op, struct canfd_frame *cf)
 
 	/* update currframe and count under lock protection */
 	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
 
 	if (!err)
-		op->frames_abs++;
+		bcm_update_stats(op);
 
 	op->currframe++;
 
 	/* reached last frame? */
 	if (op->currframe >= op->nframes)
@@ -495,16 +508,13 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_tx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
  */
 static void bcm_rx_changed(struct bcm_op *op, struct canfd_frame *data)
 {
 	struct bcm_msg_head head;
 
-	/* update statistics */
-	op->frames_filtered++;
-
-	/* prevent statistics overflow */
-	if (op->frames_filtered > ULONG_MAX/100)
-		op->frames_filtered = op->frames_abs = 0;
+	/* update statistics (frames_filtered <= frames_abs) */
+	if (atomic_long_read(&op->frames_abs))
+		atomic_long_inc(&op->frames_filtered);
 
 	/* this element is not throttled anymore */
 	data->flags &= ~RX_THR;
 
 	memset(&head, 0, sizeof(head));
@@ -746,23 +756,26 @@ static void bcm_rx_handler(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data)
 
 	/* save rx timestamp */
 	op->rx_stamp = skb->tstamp;
 	/* save originator for recvfrom() */
 	op->rx_ifindex = skb->dev->ifindex;
-	/* update statistics */
-	op->frames_abs++;
 
-	/* snapshot the flag under lock: op->flags/op->frames may be updated
-	 * concurrently by bcm_rx_setup(). Do not call bcm_can_tx() while
-	 * holding bcm_rx_update_lock: CAN loopback on echo-capable
+	/* snapshot RTR content under lock: op->flags/op->frames may be updated
+	 * concurrently by bcm_rx_setup(). But do not call bcm_can_tx() while
+	 * holding the bcm_rx_update_lock: CAN loopback on echo-capable
 	 * interfaces (e.g. vcan) can deliver the transmitted skb back into
 	 * bcm_rx_handler() synchronously from within dev_queue_xmit().
 	 */
 	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
+
+	/* update statistics with lock analogue to bcm_rx_changed() callers */
+	bcm_update_stats(op);
+
 	rtr_frame = op->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME;
 	if (rtr_frame)
 		memcpy(&rtrframe, op->frames, op->cfsiz);
+
 	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 
 	if (rtr_frame) {
 		/* send reply for RTR-request (placed in op->frames[0]) */
 		bcm_can_tx(op, &rtrframe);

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 5/8] can: bcm: add missing rcu list annotations and operations
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] can: bcm: fix CAN frame rx/tx statistics Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] can: bcm: extend bcm_tx_lock usage for data and timer updates Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde, sashiko-reviews

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

sashiko-bot remarked the missing use of list_add_rcu() in
bcm_[rx|tx]_setup() to have a proper initialized bcm_op structure
when bcm_proc_show() traverses the bcm_op's under rcu_read_lock().

To cover all initial settings of the bcm_op's the list_add_rcu() calls
are moved to the end of the setup code.

While at it, also fix the mirroring removal side: bcm_release() called
bcm_remove_op() - which frees the op via call_rcu() - on ops that were
still linked in bo->tx_ops/bo->rx_ops, without list_del_rcu() first.
Unlink each op with list_del_rcu() before handing it to bcm_remove_op(),
matching the existing pattern in bcm_delete_tx_op()/bcm_delete_rx_op().

Reported-by: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20260610094654.A1FFE1F00893@smtp.kernel.org/
Fixes: dac5e6249159 ("can: bcm: add missing rcu read protection for procfs content")
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index 0b53dbb64dd1..5ca684cd0819 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -263,11 +263,11 @@ static int bcm_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 		seq_printf(m, "%s%ld%%\n",
 			   (reduction == 100) ? "near " : "", reduction);
 	}
 
-	list_for_each_entry(op, &bo->tx_ops, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(op, &bo->tx_ops, list) {
 
 		seq_printf(m, "tx_op: %03X %s ", op->can_id,
 			   bcm_proc_getifname(net, ifname, op->ifindex));
 
 		if (op->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME)
@@ -1000,10 +1000,11 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 			int ifindex, struct sock *sk)
 {
 	struct bcm_sock *bo = bcm_sk(sk);
 	struct bcm_op *op;
 	struct canfd_frame *cf;
+	bool add_op_to_list = false;
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
 	/* we need a real device to send frames */
 	if (!ifindex)
@@ -1141,12 +1142,11 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 
 		/* currently unused in tx_ops */
 		hrtimer_setup(&op->thrtimer, hrtimer_dummy_timeout, CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
 			      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT);
 
-		/* add this bcm_op to the list of the tx_ops */
-		list_add(&op->list, &bo->tx_ops);
+		add_op_to_list = true;
 
 	} /* if ((op = bcm_find_op(&bo->tx_ops, msg_head->can_id, ifindex))) */
 
 	if (op->flags & SETTIMER) {
 		/* set timer values */
@@ -1164,10 +1164,14 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
 		/* spec: send CAN frame when starting timer */
 		op->flags |= TX_ANNOUNCE;
 	}
 
+	/* add this bcm_op to the list of the tx_ops? */
+	if (add_op_to_list)
+		list_add_rcu(&op->list, &bo->tx_ops);
+
 	if (op->flags & TX_ANNOUNCE)
 		bcm_can_tx(op, NULL);
 
 	if (op->flags & STARTTIMER)
 		bcm_tx_start_timer(op);
@@ -1348,13 +1352,10 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		hrtimer_setup(&op->timer, bcm_rx_timeout_handler, CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
 			      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT);
 		hrtimer_setup(&op->thrtimer, bcm_rx_thr_handler, CLOCK_MONOTONIC,
 			      HRTIMER_MODE_REL_SOFT);
 
-		/* add this bcm_op to the list of the rx_ops */
-		list_add(&op->list, &bo->rx_ops);
-
 		/* call can_rx_register() */
 		do_rx_register = 1;
 
 	} /* if ((op = bcm_find_op(&bo->rx_ops, msg_head->can_id, ifindex))) */
 
@@ -1422,14 +1423,16 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 			err = can_rx_register(sock_net(sk), NULL, op->can_id,
 					      REGMASK(op->can_id),
 					      bcm_rx_handler, op, "bcm", sk);
 		if (err) {
 			/* this bcm rx op is broken -> remove it */
-			list_del_rcu(&op->list);
 			bcm_remove_op(op);
 			return err;
 		}
+
+		/* add this bcm_op to the list of the rx_ops */
+		list_add_rcu(&op->list, &bo->rx_ops);
 	}
 
 	return msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz + MHSIZ;
 }
 
@@ -1759,12 +1762,14 @@ static int bcm_release(struct socket *sock)
 	/* remove procfs entry */
 	if (net->can.bcmproc_dir && bo->bcm_proc_read)
 		remove_proc_entry(bo->procname, net->can.bcmproc_dir);
 #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
 
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, &bo->tx_ops, list)
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, &bo->tx_ops, list) {
+		list_del_rcu(&op->list);
 		bcm_remove_op(op);
+	}
 
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, &bo->rx_ops, list) {
 		/*
 		 * Don't care if we're bound or not (due to netdev problems)
 		 * can_rx_unregister() is always a save thing to do here.
@@ -1791,12 +1796,14 @@ static int bcm_release(struct socket *sock)
 
 	}
 
 	synchronize_rcu();
 
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, &bo->rx_ops, list)
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, &bo->rx_ops, list) {
+		list_del_rcu(&op->list);
 		bcm_remove_op(op);
+	}
 
 	/* remove device reference */
 	if (bo->bound) {
 		WRITE_ONCE(bo->bound, 0);
 		bo->ifindex = 0;

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 6/8] can: bcm: extend bcm_tx_lock usage for data and timer updates
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] can: bcm: add missing rcu list annotations and operations Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] can: bcm: validate frame length in bcm_rx_setup() for RTR replies Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] can: bcm: add missing device refcount for CAN filter removal Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

Stage new CAN frame content for an existing tx op into a kmalloc()'d
buffer and validate it there, mirroring the approach already used in
bcm_rx_setup(). Only copy the validated data into op->frames while
holding op->bcm_tx_lock, so bcm_can_tx() and bcm_tx_timeout_handler()
can no longer observe a partially updated or unvalidated frame.

Add a missing error path for memcpy_from_msg() when copying CAN frame
data from userspace.

Also move the kt_ival1/kt_ival2/ival1/ival2 updates in bcm_tx_setup()
under op->bcm_tx_lock, and read kt_ival1/kt_ival2/count under the same
lock in bcm_tx_set_expiry() and bcm_tx_timeout_handler(), closing the
torn 64-bit ktime_t read on 32-bit platforms.

Fixes: c2aba69d0c36 ("can: bcm: add locking for bcm_op runtime updates")
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index 5ca684cd0819..03354c515894 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -126,11 +126,11 @@ struct bcm_op {
 	void *last_frames;
 	struct canfd_frame sframe;
 	struct canfd_frame last_sframe;
 	struct sock *sk;
 	struct net_device *rx_reg_dev;
-	spinlock_t bcm_tx_lock; /* protect currframe/count in runtime updates */
+	spinlock_t bcm_tx_lock; /* protect tx data and timer updates */
 	spinlock_t bcm_rx_update_lock; /* protect filter/timer data updates */
 };
 
 struct bcm_sock {
 	struct sock sk;
@@ -453,16 +453,22 @@ static void bcm_send_to_user(struct bcm_op *op, struct bcm_msg_head *head,
 
 static bool bcm_tx_set_expiry(struct bcm_op *op, struct hrtimer *hrt)
 {
 	ktime_t ival;
 
+	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+
 	if (op->kt_ival1 && op->count)
 		ival = op->kt_ival1;
-	else if (op->kt_ival2)
+	else if (op->kt_ival2) {
 		ival = op->kt_ival2;
-	else
+	} else {
+		spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
 		return false;
+	}
+
+	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
 
 	hrtimer_set_expires(hrt, ktime_add(ktime_get(), ival));
 	return true;
 }
 
@@ -475,12 +481,21 @@ static void bcm_tx_start_timer(struct bcm_op *op)
 /* bcm_tx_timeout_handler - performs cyclic CAN frame transmissions */
 static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_tx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 {
 	struct bcm_op *op = container_of(hrtimer, struct bcm_op, timer);
 	struct bcm_msg_head msg_head;
+	bool tx_ival1, tx_ival2;
 
-	if (op->kt_ival1 && (op->count > 0)) {
+	/* snapshot kt_ival1/kt_ival2/count under lock to avoid torn
+	 * ktime_t reads racing with concurrent bcm_tx_setup() updates
+	 */
+	spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+	tx_ival1 = op->kt_ival1 && (op->count > 0);
+	tx_ival2 = !!op->kt_ival2;
+	spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+
+	if (tx_ival1) {
 		bcm_can_tx(op, NULL);
 		if (!op->count && (op->flags & TX_COUNTEVT)) {
 
 			/* create notification to user */
 			memset(&msg_head, 0, sizeof(msg_head));
@@ -493,11 +508,11 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_tx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
 			msg_head.nframes = 0;
 
 			bcm_send_to_user(op, &msg_head, NULL, 0);
 		}
 
-	} else if (op->kt_ival2) {
+	} else if (tx_ival2) {
 		bcm_can_tx(op, NULL);
 	}
 
 	return bcm_tx_set_expiry(op, &op->timer) ?
 		HRTIMER_RESTART : HRTIMER_NORESTART;
@@ -1019,64 +1034,80 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* check the given can_id */
 	op = bcm_find_op(&bo->tx_ops, msg_head, ifindex);
 	if (op) {
+		void *new_frames;
+
 		/* update existing BCM operation */
 
 		/*
 		 * Do we need more space for the CAN frames than currently
 		 * allocated? -> This is a _really_ unusual use-case and
 		 * therefore (complexity / locking) it is not supported.
 		 */
 		if (msg_head->nframes > op->nframes)
 			return -E2BIG;
 
-		/* update CAN frames content */
+		/* get new CAN frames content into a staging buffer before
+		 * locking: validate and normalize the frames there so that
+		 * bcm_can_tx() / bcm_tx_timeout_handler() never observe a
+		 * partially updated or unvalidated frame in op->frames
+		 */
+		new_frames = kmalloc(msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz, GFP_KERNEL);
+		if (!new_frames)
+			return -ENOMEM;
+
 		for (i = 0; i < msg_head->nframes; i++) {
 
-			cf = op->frames + op->cfsiz * i;
+			cf = new_frames + op->cfsiz * i;
 			err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)cf, msg, op->cfsiz);
+			if (err < 0) {
+				kfree(new_frames);
+				return err;
+			}
 
 			if (op->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME) {
 				if (cf->len > 64)
 					err = -EINVAL;
 			} else {
 				if (cf->len > 8)
 					err = -EINVAL;
 			}
 
-			if (err < 0)
+			if (err < 0) {
+				kfree(new_frames);
 				return err;
+			}
 
 			if (msg_head->flags & TX_CP_CAN_ID) {
 				/* copy can_id into frame */
 				cf->can_id = msg_head->can_id;
 			}
 		}
+
+		spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+
+		/* update CAN frames content */
+		memcpy(op->frames, new_frames, msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
+
 		op->flags = msg_head->flags;
 
-		/* only lock for unlikely count/nframes/currframe changes */
 		if (op->nframes != msg_head->nframes ||
-		    op->flags & TX_RESET_MULTI_IDX ||
-		    op->flags & SETTIMER) {
-
-			spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
+		    op->flags & TX_RESET_MULTI_IDX) {
+			/* potentially update changed nframes */
+			op->nframes = msg_head->nframes;
+			/* restart multiple frame transmission */
+			op->currframe = 0;
+		}
 
-			if (op->nframes != msg_head->nframes ||
-			    op->flags & TX_RESET_MULTI_IDX) {
-				/* potentially update changed nframes */
-				op->nframes = msg_head->nframes;
-				/* restart multiple frame transmission */
-				op->currframe = 0;
-			}
+		if (op->flags & SETTIMER)
+			op->count = msg_head->count;
 
-			if (op->flags & SETTIMER)
-				op->count = msg_head->count;
+		spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
 
-			spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
-		}
+		kfree(new_frames);
 
 	} else {
 		/* insert new BCM operation for the given can_id */
 
 		op = kzalloc(OPSIZ, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -1148,14 +1179,16 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 
 	} /* if ((op = bcm_find_op(&bo->tx_ops, msg_head->can_id, ifindex))) */
 
 	if (op->flags & SETTIMER) {
 		/* set timer values */
+		spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
 		op->ival1 = msg_head->ival1;
 		op->ival2 = msg_head->ival2;
 		op->kt_ival1 = bcm_timeval_to_ktime(msg_head->ival1);
 		op->kt_ival2 = bcm_timeval_to_ktime(msg_head->ival2);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&op->bcm_tx_lock);
 
 		/* disable an active timer due to zero values? */
 		if (!op->kt_ival1 && !op->kt_ival2)
 			hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
 	}

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 7/8] can: bcm: validate frame length in bcm_rx_setup() for RTR replies
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] can: bcm: extend bcm_tx_lock usage for data and timer updates Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] can: bcm: add missing device refcount for CAN filter removal Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

bcm_tx_setup() validates cf->len against the CAN/CAN FD DLC limits
before installing frames for TX_SETUP, but bcm_rx_setup() never did
the same for the RTR-reply frame configured via RX_SETUP with
RX_RTR_FRAME.

Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index 03354c515894..57d7e81160b4 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -1216,26 +1216,41 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		kfree(op->frames);
 	kfree(op);
 	return err;
 }
 
-static void bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head,
-				   struct bcm_op *op, void *new_frames)
+static int bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head,
+				  struct bcm_op *op, void *new_frames)
 {
+	struct canfd_frame *frame0 = new_frames;
+
+	if (!(msg_head->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* this frame is sent out as-is by bcm_can_tx() whenever a matching
+	 * remote request is received, so validate its length the same way
+	 * bcm_tx_setup() validates TX_SETUP frames before installing it
+	 */
+	if (msg_head->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME) {
+		if (frame0->len > 64)
+			return -EINVAL;
+	} else {
+		if (frame0->len > 8)
+			return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	/* funny feature in RX(!)_SETUP only for RTR-mode:
 	 * copy can_id into frame BUT without RTR-flag to
 	 * prevent a full-load-loopback-test ... ;-]
 	 * normalize this on the staged buffer, before it is
 	 * ever installed into op->frames.
 	 */
-	if (msg_head->flags & RX_RTR_FRAME) {
-		struct canfd_frame *frame0 = new_frames;
+	if ((msg_head->flags & TX_CP_CAN_ID) ||
+	    frame0->can_id == op->can_id)
+		frame0->can_id = op->can_id & ~CAN_RTR_FLAG;
 
-		if ((msg_head->flags & TX_CP_CAN_ID) ||
-		    frame0->can_id == op->can_id)
-			frame0->can_id = op->can_id & ~CAN_RTR_FLAG;
-	}
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
  * bcm_rx_setup - create or update a bcm rx op (for bcm_sendmsg)
  */
@@ -1294,11 +1309,15 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 			if (err < 0) {
 				kfree(new_frames);
 				return err;
 			}
 
-			bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(msg_head, op, new_frames);
+			err = bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(msg_head, op, new_frames);
+			if (err < 0) {
+				kfree(new_frames);
+				return err;
+			}
 		}
 
 		spin_lock_bh(&op->bcm_rx_update_lock);
 		op->nframes = msg_head->nframes;
 		op->flags = msg_head->flags;
@@ -1359,20 +1378,16 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		}
 
 		if (msg_head->nframes) {
 			err = memcpy_from_msg(op->frames, msg,
 					      msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
-			if (err < 0) {
-				if (op->frames != &op->sframe)
-					kfree(op->frames);
-				if (op->last_frames != &op->last_sframe)
-					kfree(op->last_frames);
-				kfree(op);
-				return err;
-			}
+			if (err < 0)
+				goto free_op;
 
-			bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(msg_head, op, op->frames);
+			err = bcm_rx_setup_rtr_check(msg_head, op, op->frames);
+			if (err < 0)
+				goto free_op;
 		}
 
 		/* bcm_can_tx / bcm_tx_timeout_handler needs this */
 		op->sk = sk;
 		sock_hold(sk);
@@ -1465,10 +1480,18 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 		/* add this bcm_op to the list of the rx_ops */
 		list_add_rcu(&op->list, &bo->rx_ops);
 	}
 
 	return msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz + MHSIZ;
+
+free_op:
+	if (op->frames != &op->sframe)
+		kfree(op->frames);
+	if (op->last_frames != &op->last_sframe)
+		kfree(op->last_frames);
+	kfree(op);
+	return err;
 }
 
 /*
  * bcm_tx_send - send a single CAN frame to the CAN interface (for bcm_sendmsg)
  */

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v5 8/8] can: bcm: add missing device refcount for CAN filter removal
  2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] can: bcm: validate frame length in bcm_rx_setup() for RTR replies Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay @ 2026-07-07 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-can; +Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Marc Kleine-Budde, sashiko-bot

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

sashiko-bot remarked a problem with a concurrent device unregistration
in isotp.c which also is present in the bcm.c code. A former fix for raw.c
commit c275a176e4b6 ("can: raw: add missing refcount for memory leak fix")
introduced a netdevice_tracker which solves the issue for bcm.c too.

bcm_release(), bcm_delete_rx_op() and bcm_notifier() relied on
dev_get_by_index(ifindex) to re-find the device for an rx_op before
unregistering its filter. If a concurrent NETDEV_UNREGISTER has already
unlisted the device from the ifindex table, that lookup fails and
can_rx_unregister() is silently skipped, leaving a stale CAN filter
pointing at the soon-to-be-freed bcm_op/socket.

Hold a netdev_hold()/netdev_put() tracked reference on op->rx_reg_dev
from the moment the rx filter is registered in bcm_rx_setup() until it
is unregistered in bcm_rx_unreg(), and use that reference directly in
bcm_release() and bcm_delete_rx_op() instead of re-looking the device
up by ifindex.

Reported-by: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260707094716.63578-1-socketcan@hartkopp.net
Fixes: ffd980f976e7 ("[CAN]: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol")
Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
---
 net/can/bcm.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
index 57d7e81160b4..582ed8706e37 100644
--- a/net/can/bcm.c
+++ b/net/can/bcm.c
@@ -126,10 +126,11 @@ struct bcm_op {
 	void *last_frames;
 	struct canfd_frame sframe;
 	struct canfd_frame last_sframe;
 	struct sock *sk;
 	struct net_device *rx_reg_dev;
+	netdevice_tracker rx_reg_dev_tracker;
 	spinlock_t bcm_tx_lock; /* protect tx data and timer updates */
 	spinlock_t bcm_rx_update_lock; /* protect filter/timer data updates */
 };
 
 struct bcm_sock {
@@ -907,10 +908,11 @@ static void bcm_rx_unreg(struct net_device *dev, struct bcm_op *op)
 		can_rx_unregister(dev_net(dev), dev, op->can_id,
 				  REGMASK(op->can_id), bcm_rx_handler, op);
 
 		/* mark as removed subscription */
 		op->rx_reg_dev = NULL;
+		netdev_put(dev, &op->rx_reg_dev_tracker);
 	} else
 		printk(KERN_ERR "can-bcm: bcm_rx_unreg: registered device "
 		       "mismatch %p %p\n", op->rx_reg_dev, dev);
 }
 
@@ -937,21 +939,18 @@ static int bcm_delete_rx_op(struct list_head *ops, struct bcm_msg_head *mh,
 			if (op->ifindex) {
 				/*
 				 * Only remove subscriptions that had not
 				 * been removed due to NETDEV_UNREGISTER
 				 * in bcm_notifier()
+				 *
+				 * op->rx_reg_dev is a tracked reference taken
+				 * when the subscription was registered, so it
+				 * stays valid here even if a concurrent
+				 * NETDEV_UNREGISTER already unlisted the dev.
 				 */
-				if (op->rx_reg_dev) {
-					struct net_device *dev;
-
-					dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(op->sk),
-							       op->ifindex);
-					if (dev) {
-						bcm_rx_unreg(dev, op);
-						dev_put(dev);
-					}
-				}
+				if (op->rx_reg_dev)
+					bcm_rx_unreg(op->rx_reg_dev, op);
 			} else
 				can_rx_unregister(sock_net(op->sk), NULL,
 						  op->can_id,
 						  REGMASK(op->can_id),
 						  bcm_rx_handler, op);
@@ -1456,11 +1455,21 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
 						      op->can_id,
 						      REGMASK(op->can_id),
 						      bcm_rx_handler, op,
 						      "bcm", sk);
 
-				op->rx_reg_dev = dev;
+				/* keep a tracked reference so that a later
+				 * unregister can safely reach the device even
+				 * if a concurrent NETDEV_UNREGISTER has
+				 * already unlisted it by ifindex
+				 */
+				if (!err) {
+					op->rx_reg_dev = dev;
+					netdev_hold(dev,
+						    &op->rx_reg_dev_tracker,
+						    GFP_KERNEL);
+				}
 				dev_put(dev);
 			} else {
 				/* the requested device is gone - do not
 				 * silently succeed without registering
 				 */
@@ -1833,20 +1842,18 @@ static int bcm_release(struct socket *sock)
 		if (op->ifindex) {
 			/*
 			 * Only remove subscriptions that had not
 			 * been removed due to NETDEV_UNREGISTER
 			 * in bcm_notifier()
+			 *
+			 * op->rx_reg_dev is a tracked reference taken
+			 * when the subscription was registered, so it
+			 * stays valid here even if a concurrent
+			 * NETDEV_UNREGISTER already unlisted the device.
 			 */
-			if (op->rx_reg_dev) {
-				struct net_device *dev;
-
-				dev = dev_get_by_index(net, op->ifindex);
-				if (dev) {
-					bcm_rx_unreg(dev, op);
-					dev_put(dev);
-				}
-			}
+			if (op->rx_reg_dev)
+				bcm_rx_unreg(op->rx_reg_dev, op);
 		} else
 			can_rx_unregister(net, NULL, op->can_id,
 					  REGMASK(op->can_id),
 					  bcm_rx_handler, op);
 

-- 
2.53.0



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:16   ` sashiko-bot
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-07-07 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Oliver Hartkopp
  Cc: Oliver Hartkopp, Oleksij Rempel, Vincent Mailhol, linux-can,
	Marc Kleine-Budde

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Unbounded kernel memory allocation in BCM RX_SETUP and TX_SETUP handlers.
- [High] Missing RCU list primitives causes data races and memory ordering vulnerabilities for `rx_ops` and `tx_ops`.
- [High] Data races and state corruption due to unprotected direct copy into active CAN frame arrays.
- [High] Device unregistration race in `bcm_delete_rx_op` causes netdevice leak and Use-After-Free.
--

--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure ---
commit 055258653f72b3386825203a828327e5ab3630d0
Author: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure

This commit fixes a race condition where bcm_sendmsg() locklessly reads
interface indices while other functions mutate them under lock. It moves
these checks under the socket lock to ensure consistency. It also fixes a
silent success return in bcm_rx_setup() when the target device concurrently
disappears.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/CAGp+u1aBK8QVjsvAxM2Ldzep4rEbsP9x_pV3At4g=h1kVEtyhA@mail.gmail.com/

> diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
> index bdf53241bd7b3..b612135b017d1 100644
> --- a/net/can/bcm.c
> +++ b/net/can/bcm.c
> @@ -1323,6 +1323,11 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
>  
>  				op->rx_reg_dev = dev;
>  				dev_put(dev);
> +			} else {
> +				/* the requested device is gone - do not
> +				 * silently succeed without registering
> +				 */
> +				err = -ENODEV;
>  			}

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this allocation lack socket memory
limits?

When allocating the operation structure and frame array in bcm_rx_setup()
and bcm_tx_setup():

op = kzalloc(OPSIZ, GFP_KERNEL);
...
op->frames = kmalloc_array(msg_head->nframes, op->cfsiz, GFP_KERNEL);

Could an unprivileged user exhaust kernel memory by creating a CAN BCM socket
and repeatedly sending RX_SETUP or TX_SETUP messages with unique can_id values,
since these allocations are not accounted against sk_omem_alloc or
sk_wmem_alloc?

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is there a data race when updating frames?

In bcm_rx_setup() and bcm_tx_setup(), incoming frame data is copied directly
into the active op->frames array without holding a lock to protect the buffers:

err = memcpy_from_msg(op->frames, msg, msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);

Could the cyclic timeout handlers call bcm_can_tx() and read from op->frames
locklessly while this copy is happening?

This might allow bcm_can_tx() to read and process torn or partially-updated
CAN frames, potentially leading to out-of-bounds reads in drivers if frame
lengths are corrupted.

[ ... ]

> @@ -1436,20 +1463,21 @@ static int bcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
[ ... ]
>  	switch (msg_head.opcode) {
>  
>  	case TX_SETUP:

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but do the rx_ops and tx_ops list modifications
need RCU memory barriers?

In bcm_rx_setup() and bcm_tx_setup(), operations are inserted into the lists.
While rx_ops uses list_add_rcu() in some places, tx_ops uses the standard
list_add():

list_add(&op->list, &bo->tx_ops);

Readers such as bcm_proc_show() iterate over these lists locklessly under
rcu_read_lock():

list_for_each_entry(op, &bo->tx_ops, list) {

Could this cause data races on weakly-ordered architectures where the CPU
reorders the initialization of the new node's pointers to occur after it
becomes visible in the list?

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does bcm_delete_rx_op() leak device
references?

When userspace removes an RX operation via bcm_delete_rx_op(), it validates
the device by calling dev_get_by_index(). If the device is concurrently
unregistering, it returns NULL:

dev = dev_get_by_index(sock_net(op->sk), op->ifindex);
if (dev) {
        bcm_rx_unreg(dev, op);
        dev_put(dev);
}

If dev is NULL, bcm_rx_unreg() is skipped but the op is freed anyway.

Since the op is removed from bo->rx_ops, a subsequent NETDEV_UNREGISTER
event in bcm_notify() will not find it either.

Does this leave the bcm_rx_handler permanently registered to a freed op
structure?

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260707-bcm_fixes-v5-0-c3c74f8d8ff7@hartkopp.net?part=2

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF
  2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
@ 2026-07-07 18:18   ` sashiko-bot
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-07-07 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Oliver Hartkopp
  Cc: Oleksij Rempel, Marc Kleine-Budde, Oliver Hartkopp,
	Vincent Mailhol, linux-can

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [Critical] Invalid CAN frame length bypasses validation during BCM TX operation update, potentially causing driver-level out-of-bounds reads.
- [High] Missing RCU-safe list addition and traversal for tx_ops and rx_ops lists.
- [High] Data races when modifying existing CAN filters and frames concurrently with network rx/tx paths.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF ---
commit 19a74c15fd3018b3b148c40380ac7643f49b00f3
Author: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>

    can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF
    
This commit replaces the direct call_rcu() with a deferred workqueue
item for freeing the bcm_op structure. This safely cancels the
timers and deallocates memory in sleepable process context, preventing
a use-after-free condition.

> diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c
> index a4bef2c48a559..bdf53241bd7b3 100644
> --- a/net/can/bcm.c
> +++ b/net/can/bcm.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -1060,6 +1081,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
>  
>  		/* bcm_can_tx / bcm_tx_timeout_handler needs this */
>  		op->sk = sk;
> +		sock_hold(sk);

[Severity: Critical]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does the frame length validation handle
invalid sizes correctly before they become active?

In bcm_tx_setup(), when updating an existing TX operation, user data is copied
directly into the active op->frames buffer before it is validated:

net/can/bcm.c:bcm_tx_setup() {
    ...
    err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)cf, msg, op->cfsiz);

    if (op->flags & CAN_FD_FRAME) {
        if (cf->len > 64)
            err = -EINVAL;
    } else {
        if (cf->len > 8)
            err = -EINVAL;
    }

    if (err < 0)
        return err;
    ...
}

If the provided cf->len is invalid (e.g., greater than 64 for CAN FD), the
function returns -EINVAL and exits, but the invalid length has already been
written into op->frames.

Since the existing op is still active and its timer continues ticking,
bcm_tx_timeout_handler() could eventually transmit this malformed frame to the
CAN device via can_send(). CAN drivers rely on the core stack to validate
lengths, and processing a length greater than 64 could cause out-of-bounds
array reads (e.g., in can_fd_len2dlc) or other memory corruption. Could an
unprivileged user sending a crafted payload trigger this?

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this code need to use
list_add_rcu() to ensure safe concurrent traversal?

The tx_ops and rx_ops lists are iterated in bcm_proc_show() under
rcu_read_lock() without holding the socket lock:

net/can/bcm.c:bcm_proc_show() {
    ...
    list_for_each_entry(op, &bo->tx_ops, list) {
    ...
}

However, new operations are inserted into these lists in bcm_tx_setup() and
bcm_rx_setup() using the standard list_add() macro:

net/can/bcm.c:bcm_tx_setup() {
    ...
    list_add(&op->list, &bo->tx_ops);
    ...
}

On weakly-ordered CPU architectures, this lacks the necessary
smp_store_release() memory barriers, meaning concurrent RCU readers in
bcm_proc_show() can observe a new list node before its contents or its next
pointer are fully initialized, potentially leading to data corruption or
crashes.

Furthermore, bcm_proc_show() iterates over tx_ops using list_for_each_entry()
rather than list_for_each_entry_rcu(), omitting the data dependency barriers
required for safe concurrent traversal. Can userspace reading
/proc/net/can-bcm/* while configuring a socket trigger this?

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but are there data races when
updating existing CAN filters and frames concurrently?

In bcm_rx_setup() and bcm_tx_setup(), when updating an existing bcm_op, the
user-provided data is copied directly into op->frames without holding
bcm_tx_lock or any lock that synchronizes with the network datapath:

net/can/bcm.c:bcm_rx_setup() {
    ...
    err = memcpy_from_msg(op->frames, msg, msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
    if (err < 0)
        return err;

    memset(op->last_frames, 0, msg_head->nframes * op->cfsiz);
    ...
}

Concurrently, bcm_rx_handler() (running in softirq context) iterates over
op->frames and reads/modifies op->last_frames locklessly:

net/can/bcm.c:bcm_rx_handler() {
    ...
    if ((get_u64(op->frames, 0) & get_u64(rxframe, 0)) ==
    ...
}

This could lead to memory corruption in last_frames or matching against
partially updated frames.

Similarly, bcm_can_tx() retrieves a pointer into op->frames under
bcm_tx_lock, but drops the lock prior to calling skb_put_data() (which reads
from op->frames):

net/can/bcm.c:bcm_can_tx() {
    ...
    skb_put_data(skb, cf, op->cfsiz);
    ...
}

Does this allow a data race where a CAN frame is being transmitted at the
exact same time it is being overwritten?

>  		op->ifindex = ifindex;
>  
>  		/* initialize uninitialized (kzalloc) structure */

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260707-bcm_fixes-v5-0-c3c74f8d8ff7@hartkopp.net?part=1

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2026-07-07 18:18 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-07-07 18:00 [PATCH v5 0/8] can: bcm: collected fixes Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] can: bcm: defer rx_op deallocation to workqueue to fix thrtimer UAF Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:18   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] can: bcm: fix lockless bound/ifindex race and silent RX_SETUP failure Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:16   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] can: bcm: add locking when updating filter and timer values Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] can: bcm: fix CAN frame rx/tx statistics Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] can: bcm: add missing rcu list annotations and operations Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] can: bcm: extend bcm_tx_lock usage for data and timer updates Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] can: bcm: validate frame length in bcm_rx_setup() for RTR replies Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay
2026-07-07 18:00 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] can: bcm: add missing device refcount for CAN filter removal Oliver Hartkopp via B4 Relay

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox