From: Minho Ban <mhban@samsung.com>
To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Bluetooth: prevent double l2cap_chan_destroy
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:50:29 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FBAFEF5.2000207@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120521162137.GE16942@joana>
On 05/22/2012 01:21 AM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> Hi Minho,
>
> * Minho Ban <mhban@samsung.com> [2012-05-21 09:56:40 +0900]:
>
>> l2cap_sock_kill can be called in l2cap_sock_release and l2cap_sock_close_cb
>> either. This lead l2cap_chan_destroy to be called twice for same channel.
>> To prevent double list_del and double chan_put, chan_destroy should be protected
>> with chan->refcnt and chan_list_lock so that reentrance could be forbidden.
>
> Even if l2cap_sock_kill() is called twice it will call l2cap_chan_destroy()
> only once. If this is not happening we just have a broken piece of code
> somewhere else and not here.
>
> Gustavo
>
Thanks for comment but I could not found any suitable code in l2cap_sock_kill that
can make l2cap_chan_destroy to be called just once. sock flag test is not enough to
do it.
I agree this path should not be the fix. Testing chan->refcnt is nonsense because
chan might have been freed already. So I looked for another point,
@@ -1343,10 +1343,10 @@ static void l2cap_conn_del(struct hci_conn *hcon, int err)
l2cap_chan_lock(chan);
l2cap_chan_del(chan, err);
+ chan->ops->close(chan->data);
l2cap_chan_unlock(chan);
- chan->ops->close(chan->data);
l2cap_chan_put(chan);
}
close callback must locate within chan_lock unless it can be scheduled to other thread
which may wait for chan_lock in l2cap_sock_shutdown and this lead to duplicate sock_kill.
static void l2cap_sock_kill(struct sock *sk)
{
- if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED) || sk->sk_socket)
+ if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED) || sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD) ||
+ sk->sk_socket)
return;
BT_DBG("sk %p state %s", sk, state_to_string(sk->sk_state));
Duplicate sock_kill may happen anyway, need test SOCK_DEAD if chan_destroy is already called.
Regards,
Minho Ban
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-22 2:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-21 0:56 [RFC/PATCH] Bluetooth: prevent double l2cap_chan_destroy Minho Ban
2012-05-21 16:21 ` Gustavo Padovan
2012-05-22 2:50 ` Minho Ban [this message]
2012-05-22 12:23 ` Chanyeol Park
2012-05-23 1:39 ` Minho Ban
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=4FBAFEF5.2000207@samsung.com \
--to=mhban@samsung.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gustavo@padovan.org \
--cc=johan.hedberg@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).