FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rxrpc: only handle RESPONSE during service challenge" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rxrpc: only handle RESPONSE during service challenge" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

[gregkh]

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-5.10.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x c43ffdcfdbb5567b1f143556df8a04b4eeea041c
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2026041312-chirping-bling-3a09@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:



thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From c43ffdcfdbb5567b1f143556df8a04b4eeea041c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wang Jie <jiewang2024@lzu.edu.cn>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 13:12:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] rxrpc: only handle RESPONSE during service challenge

Only process RESPONSE packets while the service connection is still in
RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING. Check that state under state_lock before
running response verification and security initialization, then use a local
secured flag to decide whether to queue the secured-connection work after
the state transition. This keeps duplicate or late RESPONSE packets from
re-running the setup path and removes the unlocked post-transition state
test.

Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both")
Reported-by: Yifan Wu <yifanwucs@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Juefei Pu <tomapufckgml@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Xin Liu <bird@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Jie Wang <jiewang2024@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Yang Yang <n05ec@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@auristor.com>
cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: stable@kernel.org
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260408121252.2249051-21-dhowells@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c
index c50cbfc5a313..9a41ec708aeb 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c
@@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static int rxrpc_process_event(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
 			       struct sk_buff *skb)
 {
 	struct rxrpc_skb_priv *sp = rxrpc_skb(skb);
+	bool secured = false;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (conn->state == RXRPC_CONN_ABORTED)
@@ -262,6 +263,13 @@ static int rxrpc_process_event(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
 		return ret;
 
 	case RXRPC_PACKET_TYPE_RESPONSE:
+		spin_lock_irq(&conn->state_lock);
+		if (conn->state != RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING) {
+			spin_unlock_irq(&conn->state_lock);
+			return 0;
+		}
+		spin_unlock_irq(&conn->state_lock);
+
 		ret = conn->security->verify_response(conn, skb);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			return ret;
@@ -272,11 +280,13 @@ static int rxrpc_process_event(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
 			return ret;
 
 		spin_lock_irq(&conn->state_lock);
-		if (conn->state == RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING)
+		if (conn->state == RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING) {
 			conn->state = RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE;
+			secured = true;
+		}
 		spin_unlock_irq(&conn->state_lock);
 
-		if (conn->state == RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE) {
+		if (secured) {
 			/* Offload call state flipping to the I/O thread.  As
 			 * we've already received the packet, put it on the
 			 * front of the queue.

[PATCH 5.10.y] rxrpc: only handle RESPONSE during service challenge

[Sasha Levin]

From: Wang Jie <jiewang2024@lzu.edu.cn>

[ Upstream commit c43ffdcfdbb5567b1f143556df8a04b4eeea041c ]

Only process RESPONSE packets while the service connection is still in
RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING. Check that state under state_lock before
running response verification and security initialization, then use a local
secured flag to decide whether to queue the secured-connection work after
the state transition. This keeps duplicate or late RESPONSE packets from
re-running the setup path and removes the unlocked post-transition state
test.

Fixes: 17926a79320a ("[AF_RXRPC]: Provide secure RxRPC sockets for use by userspace and kernel both")
Reported-by: Yifan Wu <yifanwucs@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Juefei Pu <tomapufckgml@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuan Tan <yuantan098@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Xin Liu <bird@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Jie Wang <jiewang2024@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Yang Yang <n05ec@lzu.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@auristor.com>
cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: stable@kernel.org
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260408121252.2249051-21-dhowells@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
[ adapted to spin_lock_bh usage, 3-arg verify_response(), and direct rxrpc_call_is_secure() ]
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 net/rxrpc/conn_event.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c
index 9081e84295844..205d2e4942389 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_event.c
@@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ static int rxrpc_process_event(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
 			       u32 *_abort_code)
 {
 	struct rxrpc_skb_priv *sp = rxrpc_skb(skb);
+	bool secured = false;
 	__be32 wtmp;
 	u32 abort_code;
 	int loop, ret;
@@ -337,6 +338,13 @@ static int rxrpc_process_event(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
 							    _abort_code);
 
 	case RXRPC_PACKET_TYPE_RESPONSE:
+		spin_lock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
+		if (conn->state != RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING) {
+			spin_unlock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
+			return 0;
+		}
+		spin_unlock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
+
 		ret = conn->security->verify_response(conn, skb, _abort_code);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			return ret;
@@ -351,17 +359,18 @@ static int rxrpc_process_event(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
 
 		spin_lock(&conn->bundle->channel_lock);
 		spin_lock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
-
 		if (conn->state == RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE_CHALLENGING) {
 			conn->state = RXRPC_CONN_SERVICE;
-			spin_unlock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
+			secured = true;
+		}
+		spin_unlock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
+
+		if (secured) {
 			for (loop = 0; loop < RXRPC_MAXCALLS; loop++)
 				rxrpc_call_is_secure(
 					rcu_dereference_protected(
 						conn->channels[loop].call,
 						lockdep_is_held(&conn->bundle->channel_lock)));
-		} else {
-			spin_unlock_bh(&conn->state_lock);
 		}
 
 		spin_unlock(&conn->bundle->channel_lock);
-- 
2.53.0