From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
david@ixit.cz, oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nfc: llcp: Fix nfc_dev refcount leak in connect
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 09:38:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260727083838.710246-1-horms@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260720193759.1773705-1-shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
Full review at: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260720193759.1773705-1-shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com?part=1
---
Now I have all the information needed to write the report.
commit 01a1553c1a8c5e891087997a8fe9ee0913eb3c57
Author: Shuangpeng Bai <shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com>
nfc: llcp: Fix nfc_dev refcount leak in connect
This patch drops the nfc_dev reference in llcp_sock_release() when the
socket is still in LLCP_CONNECTING, addressing the leak path where
llcp_sock_destruct() only puts the device on LLCP_CONNECTED. The gate
is keyed on sk_state at release time.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260707183518.1888697-1-shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com
> diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c b/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c
> index feab29fc62f4..0a3d87c2c9b3 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c
> @@ -633,10 +633,12 @@ static int llcp_sock_release(struct socket *sock)
>
> if (sock->type == SOCK_RAW)
> nfc_llcp_sock_unlink(&local->raw_sockets, sk);
> - else if (sk->sk_state == LLCP_CONNECTING)
> + else if (sk->sk_state == LLCP_CONNECTING) {
> nfc_llcp_sock_unlink(&local->connecting_sockets, sk);
> - else
> + nfc_put_device(llcp_sock->dev);
> + } else {
> nfc_llcp_sock_unlink(&local->sockets, sk);
> + }
[High]
Can the leak still occur when the peer answers the outstanding CONNECT
with a DM before userspace closes the socket?
After llcp_sock_connect() returns -EINPROGRESS, the sk sits on
local->connecting_sockets with sk_state == LLCP_CONNECTING and holds a
device reference. If a DM with LLCP_DM_NOBOUND or LLCP_DM_REJ arrives,
nfc_llcp_recv_dm() looks up the sk via nfc_llcp_connecting_sock_get()
and does:
sk->sk_err = ENXIO;
sk->sk_state = LLCP_CLOSED;
sk->sk_state_change(sk);
It does not unlink the sk from connecting_sockets and does not drop the
device reference.
When llcp_sock_release() then runs, sk_state is LLCP_CLOSED, so this
new branch is skipped:
else if (sk->sk_state == LLCP_CONNECTING) {
nfc_llcp_sock_unlink(&local->connecting_sockets, sk);
nfc_put_device(llcp_sock->dev);
} else {
nfc_llcp_sock_unlink(&local->sockets, sk);
}
Two things fall out of the else branch:
1. nfc_llcp_sock_unlink() is called against &local->sockets, but the sk
is actually hashed on &local->connecting_sockets. sk_del_node_init()
still removes it, but the wrong rwlock is taken, racing with
read-side walkers of connecting_sockets such as
nfc_llcp_connecting_sock_get() and nfc_llcp_recv_cc().
2. The device reference taken by llcp_sock_connect() is not dropped.
llcp_sock_destruct() only puts it on LLCP_CONNECTED:
if (sk->sk_state == LLCP_CONNECTED)
nfc_put_device(llcp_sock->dev);
Is gating on sk_state at release time sufficient, or does the release
path need to track connecting_sockets membership (for example a
per-sock flag set at nfc_llcp_sock_link(&local->connecting_sockets, ...)
and cleared on transitions out of that list) so both the unlink target
and the nfc_put_device() are chosen based on where the sk actually
lives rather than its current state?
The DM-driven variant of this leak predates b4011239a08e, but the Fixes:
tag and the subject scope this patch as the fix for the connect-time
nfc_dev leak, so it seems worth handling in the same change.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-27 8:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-20 19:37 [PATCH v2] nfc: llcp: Fix nfc_dev refcount leak in connect Shuangpeng Bai
2026-07-27 8:38 ` Simon Horman [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=20260727083838.710246-1-horms@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david@ixit.cz \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shuangpeng.kernel@gmail.com \
/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