Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix recursive lock when verdict program return SK_PASS

[Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>]

On 11/8/24 1:03 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 11/6/24 4:44 AM, mrpre wrote:
>> When the stream_verdict program returns SK_PASS, it places the received skb
>> into its own receive queue, but a recursive lock eventually occurs, leading
>> to an operating system deadlock. This issue has been present since v6.9.
>>
>> '''
>> sk_psock_strp_data_ready
>>      write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock)
>>      strp_data_ready
>>        strp_read_sock
>>          read_sock -> tcp_read_sock
>>            strp_recv
>>              cb.rcv_msg -> sk_psock_strp_read
>>                # now stream_verdict return SK_PASS without peer sock assign
>>                __SK_PASS = sk_psock_map_verd(SK_PASS, NULL)
>>                sk_psock_verdict_apply
>>                  sk_psock_skb_ingress_self
>>                    sk_psock_skb_ingress_enqueue
>>                      sk_psock_data_ready
>>                        read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock) <= dead lock
>>
>> '''
>>
>> This topic has been discussed before, but it has not been fixed.
>> Previous discussion:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/6684a5864ec86_403d20898@john.notmuch
> 
> Is the selftest included in this link still useful to reproduce this bug?
> If yes, please include that also.
> 
>>
>> Fixes: 6648e613226e ("bpf, skmsg: Fix NULL pointer dereference in 
>> sk_psock_skb_ingress_enqueue")
>> Reported-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@datadoghq.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@163.com>
> 
> Please also use the real name in the author (i.e. the email sender). The patch 
> needs a real author name also. I had manually fixed one of your earlier 
> lock_sock fix before applying.

and the bpf mailing list address has a typo in the original patch email... I 
fixed that in this reply.

> 
> pw-bot: cr
> 
>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> 
> The patch and the earlier discussion make sense to me.
> John and JakubS, please help to take another look in the next respin.
> 
>