On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:31:33AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > > I've hit the following warning while fuzzing with trinity inside a kvmtool > guest > running the latest -next kernel: > > [ 1343.104588] =============================== > [ 1343.104591] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] > [ 1343.104619] 4.5.0-rc4-next-20160219-sasha-00026-g7978205-dirty #2978 Not > tainted > [ 1343.104624] ------------------------------- > [ 1343.104635] net/core/filter.c:2115 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() > usage! > [ 1343.104641] > [ 1343.104641] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 1343.104641] > [ 1343.104650] > [ 1343.104650] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > [ 1343.104660] 1 lock held by syz-executor/17916: > [ 1343.104784] #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: rtnl_lock > (net/core/rtnetlink.c:71) > [ 1343.104789] > [ 1343.104789] stack backtrace: > [ 1343.104820] CPU: 1 PID: 17916 Comm: trinity-c8 Not tainted > 4.5.0-rc4-next-20160219-sasha-00026-g7978205-dirty #2978 > [ 1343.104868] 1ffff10036968f44 ffff8801b4b47aa8 ffffffffa23d9a9d > ffffffff00000001 > [ 1343.104891] fffffbfff5c2a630 0000000041b58ab3 ffffffffadb3a8f2 > ffffffffa23d9905 > [ 1343.104914] 0000000000000000 ffff8801b5419b40 fffffbfff7596522 > 0000000000000001 > [ 1343.104919] Call Trace: > [ 1343.104985] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:53) > [ 1343.105060] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4282) > [ 1343.105093] sk_detach_filter (net/core/filter.c:2114 (discriminator 5)) > [ 1343.105193] tun_detach_filter (drivers/net/tun.c:1808 (discriminator 7)) > [ 1343.105238] __tun_chr_ioctl (drivers/net/tun.c:2133) > [ 1343.105370] tun_chr_ioctl (drivers/net/tun.c:2161) > [ 1343.105407] do_vfs_ioctl (fs/ioctl.c:44 fs/ioctl.c:674) > [ 1343.105506] SyS_ioctl (fs/ioctl.c:689 fs/ioctl.c:680) > [ 1343.105542] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:200)
Looks like sk_detach_filter() wants the socket to be owned which neither tun_detach_filter() does not do, unlike sock_setsockopt(). Could you check if the patch below helps? I'm also not really sure if it is safe to ignore return value of sk_detach_filter() and just sets tun->filter_attached to false - but it's not really clear what should be done if one of the calls fails after some succeeded. diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c index afdf950617c3..7417d7c20bab 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tun.c +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c @@ -1818,11 +1818,13 @@ static int set_offload(struct tun_struct *tun, unsigned long arg) static void tun_detach_filter(struct tun_struct *tun, int n) { int i; - struct tun_file *tfile; for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { - tfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[i]); - sk_detach_filter(tfile->socket.sk); + struct sock *sk = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[i])->socket.sk; + + lock_sock(sk); + sk_detach_filter(sk); + release_sock(sk); } tun->filter_attached = false;