From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To: David Heidelberg <david+nfc@ixit.cz>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Szymon Janc <szymon.janc@tieto.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] nfc: llcp: Fix race condition in accept_queue lifecycle
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:14:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260811131433.GU2869284@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260601140934.1040144-1-lee@kernel.org>
[INTENTIONAL TOP POST]
This one has been knocking around for a very long time.
Would you like me to [RESEND] it, or does everyone still have it?
On Mon, 01 Jun 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> nfc_llcp_socket_release() walks the local sockets list and the listener
> socket's accept_queue under bh_lock_sock(). However, bh_lock_sock()
> does not provide mutual exclusion against process-context lock_sock()
> held by nfc_llcp_accept_dequeue() during accept(). Since socket_release()
> runs in process context (workqueue or kref cleanup), it never checks
> sock_owned_by_user(), allowing both paths to manipulate the same child
> socket concurrently. This leads to a double sock_put() (Use-After-Free)
> or a NULL pointer dereference of child->parent in nfc_llcp_accept_unlink().
>
> Fix this by converting nfc_llcp_socket_release() to use lock_sock().
> Since it is called with the local sockets write-lock held (which disables
> preemption, preventing sleep), repeatedly pop the head socket from the
> list under the write-lock using a new helper nfc_llcp_sock_list_pop(),
> then safely acquire lock_sock() on it after dropping the list lock.
> A sock_hold() is taken under the list lock to keep the socket alive
> across the sleep and balanced with a sock_put() after release.
>
> Additionally, add a check for a non-NULL parent in nfc_llcp_accept_unlink()
> to ensure idempotency and prevent NULL pointer dereference if the unlink
> races with dequeue.
>
> Fixes: 50b78b2a6500 ("NFC: Fix sleeping in atomic when releasing socket")
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
> ---
> net/nfc/llcp_core.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> net/nfc/llcp_sock.c | 13 +++++++------
> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_core.c b/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
> index dc65c719f35f2..e51bd0d081b62 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
> @@ -63,21 +63,33 @@ static void nfc_llcp_socket_purge(struct nfc_llcp_sock *sock)
> }
> }
>
> +static struct sock *nfc_llcp_sock_list_pop(struct llcp_sock_list *l)
> +{
> + struct sock *sk;
> +
> + write_lock(&l->lock);
> + sk = sk_head(&l->head);
> + if (sk) {
> + sock_hold(sk);
> + sk_del_node_init(sk);
> + }
> + write_unlock(&l->lock);
> +
> + return sk;
> +}
> +
> static void nfc_llcp_socket_release(struct nfc_llcp_local *local, bool device,
> int err)
> {
> struct sock *sk;
> - struct hlist_node *tmp;
> struct nfc_llcp_sock *llcp_sock;
>
> skb_queue_purge(&local->tx_queue);
>
> - write_lock(&local->sockets.lock);
> -
> - sk_for_each_safe(sk, tmp, &local->sockets.head) {
> + while ((sk = nfc_llcp_sock_list_pop(&local->sockets))) {
> llcp_sock = nfc_llcp_sock(sk);
>
> - bh_lock_sock(sk);
> + lock_sock(sk);
>
> nfc_llcp_socket_purge(llcp_sock);
>
> @@ -92,7 +104,8 @@ static void nfc_llcp_socket_release(struct nfc_llcp_local *local, bool device,
> &llcp_sock->accept_queue,
> accept_queue) {
> accept_sk = &lsk->sk;
> - bh_lock_sock(accept_sk);
> + lock_sock_nested(accept_sk,
> + SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>
> nfc_llcp_accept_unlink(accept_sk);
>
> @@ -101,7 +114,7 @@ static void nfc_llcp_socket_release(struct nfc_llcp_local *local, bool device,
> accept_sk->sk_state = LLCP_CLOSED;
> accept_sk->sk_state_change(sk);
>
> - bh_unlock_sock(accept_sk);
> + release_sock(accept_sk);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -110,23 +123,18 @@ static void nfc_llcp_socket_release(struct nfc_llcp_local *local, bool device,
> sk->sk_state = LLCP_CLOSED;
> sk->sk_state_change(sk);
>
> - bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> -
> - sk_del_node_init(sk);
> + release_sock(sk);
> + sock_put(sk);
> }
>
> - write_unlock(&local->sockets.lock);
> -
> /* If we still have a device, we keep the RAW sockets alive */
> if (device == true)
> return;
>
> - write_lock(&local->raw_sockets.lock);
> -
> - sk_for_each_safe(sk, tmp, &local->raw_sockets.head) {
> + while ((sk = nfc_llcp_sock_list_pop(&local->raw_sockets))) {
> llcp_sock = nfc_llcp_sock(sk);
>
> - bh_lock_sock(sk);
> + lock_sock(sk);
>
> nfc_llcp_socket_purge(llcp_sock);
>
> @@ -135,12 +143,9 @@ static void nfc_llcp_socket_release(struct nfc_llcp_local *local, bool device,
> sk->sk_state = LLCP_CLOSED;
> sk->sk_state_change(sk);
>
> - bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> -
> - sk_del_node_init(sk);
> + release_sock(sk);
> + sock_put(sk);
> }
> -
> - write_unlock(&local->raw_sockets.lock);
> }
>
> static struct nfc_llcp_local *nfc_llcp_local_get(struct nfc_llcp_local *local)
> diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c b/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c
> index feab29fc62f44..3d30f0233b986 100644
> --- a/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c
> +++ b/net/nfc/llcp_sock.c
> @@ -384,11 +384,12 @@ void nfc_llcp_accept_unlink(struct sock *sk)
>
> pr_debug("state %d\n", sk->sk_state);
>
> - list_del_init(&llcp_sock->accept_queue);
> - sk_acceptq_removed(llcp_sock->parent);
> - llcp_sock->parent = NULL;
> -
> - sock_put(sk);
> + if (llcp_sock->parent) {
> + list_del_init(&llcp_sock->accept_queue);
> + sk_acceptq_removed(llcp_sock->parent);
> + llcp_sock->parent = NULL;
> + sock_put(sk);
> + }
> }
>
> void nfc_llcp_accept_enqueue(struct sock *parent, struct sock *sk)
> @@ -622,7 +623,7 @@ static int llcp_sock_release(struct socket *sock)
> list_for_each_entry_safe(lsk, n, &llcp_sock->accept_queue,
> accept_queue) {
> accept_sk = &lsk->sk;
> - lock_sock(accept_sk);
> + lock_sock_nested(accept_sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>
> nfc_llcp_send_disconnect(lsk);
> nfc_llcp_accept_unlink(accept_sk);
> --
> 2.54.0.823.g6e5bcc1fc9-goog
>
--
Lee Jones
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-11 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-01 14:09 [PATCH 1/1] nfc: llcp: Fix race condition in accept_queue lifecycle Lee Jones
2026-08-11 13:14 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2026-08-11 19:02 ` David Heidelberg
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=20260811131433.GU2869284@google.com \
--to=lee@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david+nfc@ixit.cz \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--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=sameo@linux.intel.com \
--cc=szymon.janc@tieto.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