Re: [PATCH net v4] l2tp: Serialize access to sk_user_data with sk_callback_lock

[Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:28 AM -08, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 1:57 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 01:40 AM -08, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 1:07 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 5:30 AM <patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hello:
>> >> >
>> >> > This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (master)
>> >> > by David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:16:19 +0100 you wrote:
>> >> > > sk->sk_user_data has multiple users, which are not compatible with each
>> >> > > other. Writers must synchronize by grabbing the sk->sk_callback_lock.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > l2tp currently fails to grab the lock when modifying the underlying tunnel
>> >> > > socket fields. Fix it by adding appropriate locking.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We err on the side of safety and grab the sk_callback_lock also inside the
>> >> > > sk_destruct callback overridden by l2tp, even though there should be no
>> >> > > refs allowing access to the sock at the time when sk_destruct gets called.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [...]
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is the summary with links:
>> >> >   - [net,v4] l2tp: Serialize access to sk_user_data with sk_callback_lock
>> >> >     https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/b68777d54fac
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I guess this patch has not been tested with LOCKDEP, right ?
>> >>
>> >> sk_callback_lock always needs _bh safety.
>> >>
>> >> I will send something like:
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
>> >> index 754fdda8a5f52e4e8e2c0f47331c3b22765033d0..a3b06a3cf68248f5ec7ae8be2a9711d0f482ac36
>> >> 100644
>> >> --- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
>> >> +++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
>> >> @@ -1474,7 +1474,7 @@ int l2tp_tunnel_register(struct l2tp_tunnel
>> >> *tunnel, struct net *net,
>> >>         }
>> >>
>> >>         sk = sock->sk;
>> >> -       write_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>> >> +       write_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>> >
>> > Unfortunately this might still not work, because
>> > setup_udp_tunnel_sock->udp_encap_enable() probably could sleep in
>> > static_branch_inc() ?
>> >
>> > I will release the syzbot report, and let you folks work on a fix, thanks.
>>
>> Ah, the problem is with pppol2tp_connect racing with itself. Thanks for
>> the syzbot report. I will take a look. I live for debugging deadlocks
>> :-)
>
> Hi Jakub, any updates on this issue ? (Other syzbot reports with the
> same root cause are piling up)
>
> Thanks

Sorry, I don't have anything yet. I have reserved time to work on it
this afternoon (I'm in the CET timezone).

Alternatively, I can send a revert right away and come back with fixed
patch once I have that, if you prefer.