In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netrom: fix possible dead-lock in nr_rt_ioctl() syzbot loves netrom, and found a possible deadlock in nr_rt_ioctl [1] Make sure we always acquire nr_node_list_lock before nr_node_lock(nr_node) [1] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.9.0-rc7-syzkaller-02147-g654de42f3fc6 #0 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ syz-executor350/5129 is trying to acquire lock: ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline] ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_node_lock include/net/netrom.h:152 [inline] ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:464 [inline] ffff8880186e2070 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_rt_ioctl+0x1bb/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline] ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:462 [inline] ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_rt_ioctl+0x10a/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}: lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754 __raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:126 [inline] _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x35/0x50 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:178 spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline] nr_remove_node net/netrom/nr_route.c:299 [inline] nr_del_node+0x4b4/0x820 net/netrom/nr_route.c:355 nr_rt_ioctl+0xa95/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:683 sock_do_ioctl+0x158/0x460 net/socket.c:1222 sock_ioctl+0x629/0x8e0 net/socket.c:1341 vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:904 [inline] __se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:890 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f -> #0 (&nr_node->node_lock){+...}-{2:2}: check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline] check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline] validate_chain+0x18cb/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869 __lock_acquire+0x1346/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137 lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754 __raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:126 [inline] _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x35/0x50 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:178 spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline] nr_node_lock include/net/netrom.h:152 [inline] nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:464 [inline] nr_rt_ioctl+0x1bb/0x1090 net/netrom/nr_route.c:697 sock_do_ioctl+0x158/0x460 net/socket.c:1222 sock_ioctl+0x629/0x8e0 net/socket.c:1341 vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:904 [inline] __se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:890 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(nr_node_list_lock); lock(&nr_node->node_lock); lock(nr_node_list_lock); lock(&nr_node->node_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by syz-executor350/5129: #0: ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:356 [inline] #0: ffffffff8f7053b8 (nr_node_list_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: nr_dec_obs net/netrom/nr_route.c:462 [inline] #0: ffffffff8f70 ---truncated---
This Cyber News was published on www.tenable.com. Publication date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 02:57:02 +0000