From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Dmitry Antipov" <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Cc: "Oliver Hartkopp" <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
"Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
"Oleksij Rempel" <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
"Vincent Mailhol" <mailhol@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] can: j1939: cancel all pending ECUs on device stop
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 11:33:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260827113342.E5FFD1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260827111410.20401-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] ABBA deadlock between `j1939_ecu_cancel_all()` and `j1939_ecu_timer_handler()` due to a TOCTOU race condition.
- [High] Use-After-Free in `hrtimer_cancel()` when the ECU is freed by the timer callback.
- [High] Lockless ECU reference drop in the fast-path causes concurrent list modification and corruption.
- [Medium] Erroneous `lockdep_assert_held()` check in the timer callback will cause false-positive warnings.
--
commit f501d51ab1fd28cee33a268e9dffc6800425d782
Author: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
can: j1939: cancel all pending ECUs on device stop
This commit cancels all pending ECUs in j1939_netdev_stop() to prevent
the stopped device from processing ECUs, avoiding scenarios where the
j1939_priv struct is never freed.
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=489e907b2a026a6f5fa0
> diff --git a/net/can/j1939/bus.c b/net/can/j1939/bus.c
> index cdc3c0a719379..9511134313a7d 100644
> --- a/net/can/j1939/bus.c
> +++ b/net/can/j1939/bus.c
> @@ -96,6 +96,16 @@ void j1939_ecu_unmap(struct j1939_ecu *ecu)
> write_unlock_bh(&ecu->priv->lock);
> }
>
> +void j1939_ecu_cancel_all(struct j1939_priv *priv)
> +{
> + struct j1939_ecu *ecu, *tmp;
> +
> + write_lock_bh(&priv->lock);
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(ecu, tmp, &priv->ecus, list)
> + j1939_ecu_timer_cancel(ecu);
[Severity: High]
Does holding write_lock_bh(&priv->lock) during synchronous timer
cancellation here risk an ABBA deadlock?
j1939_ecu_timer_cancel() calls hrtimer_cancel(), which spins waiting for
the timer callback to finish. If j1939_ecu_timer_handler() runs
concurrently on another CPU, could it read priv->stop == 0 (due to a TOCTOU
race just before priv->stop is updated) and attempt to acquire the same
lock:
j1939_ecu_timer_handler() {
...
} else {
write_lock_bh(&priv->lock);
...
}
This sequence would leave hrtimer_cancel() spinning for the callback, while
the callback spins for priv->lock, resulting in a deadlock.
> + write_unlock_bh(&priv->lock);
> +}
> +
[ ... ]
> @@ -131,18 +141,23 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart j1939_ecu_timer_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
> container_of(hrtimer, struct j1939_ecu, ac_timer);
> struct j1939_priv *priv = ecu->priv;
>
> + /* We're asked to stop from j1939_netdev_stop(). */
> + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&priv->stop))) {
> + lockdep_assert_held(&priv->lock);
[Severity: Medium]
Is this lockdep assertion correct for an asynchronous timer callback?
Since hrtimer callbacks execute asynchronously in softirq context, the
callback does not inherently hold priv->lock, regardless of whether
j1939_netdev_stop() holds it on another CPU. Because lockdep verifies the
current execution context, won't this unconditionally trigger a warning?
> + j1939_ecu_put(ecu);
[Severity: High]
Does dropping the ECU reference here without priv->lock risk list corruption
and a use-after-free?
If j1939_ecu_put() drops the final reference, __j1939_ecu_release() will be
called, which performs an unprotected list deletion:
__j1939_ecu_release() {
...
list_del(&ecu->list);
...
}
Because this happens concurrently with j1939_ecu_cancel_all() traversing
the list using list_for_each_entry_safe() on the shutdown CPU, this
could corrupt the linked list.
Additionally, if the ECU is freed via kfree(ecu) in this path, what
happens to the CPU executing hrtimer_cancel(&ecu->ac_timer) inside
j1939_ecu_timer_cancel()? Will it dereference freed memory as it continues
to spin on the destroyed timer structure?
> + } else {
> + write_lock_bh(&priv->lock);
> + /* TODO: can we test if ecu->addr is unicast before starting
> + * the timer?
> + */
> + j1939_ecu_map_locked(ecu);
> +
> + /* The corresponding j1939_ecu_get() is in
> + * j1939_ecu_timer_start().
> + */
> + j1939_ecu_put(ecu);
> + write_unlock_bh(&priv->lock);
> + }
> return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260827111410.20401-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-27 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-27 11:14 [PATCH v2] can: j1939: cancel all pending ECUs on device stop Dmitry Antipov
2026-08-27 11:33 ` sashiko-bot [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=20260827113342.E5FFD1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=dmantipov@yandex.ru \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mailhol@kernel.org \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
/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