From: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
To: marcel@holtmann.org, johan.hedberg@gmail.com, luiz.dentz@gmail.com
Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Bluetooth: hci_core: fix potential deadlock on &hci_dev_list_lock
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:13:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230927161358.32353-1-dg573847474@gmail.com> (raw)
&hci_dev_list_lock is acquired under a2mp_chan_recv_cb(), which I
think should be a softirq context cb. So it seems that the
write_lock() on &hci_dev_list_lock should at least disable bh.
hci_register_dev() and hci_unregister_dev() are exactly that two
functions acquire &hci_dev_list_lock with write_lock(), and should
be called under process context without disable bh at most case.
Note that I am not sure whether this could happen at real, as I
am not sure whether the rx callback could be invoked during
register() and unregister().
<deadlock #1>
hci_register_dev()
--> write_lock(&hci_dev_list_lock)
<interrupt>
--> a2mp_chan_recv_cb()
--> a2mp_discover_req()
--> read_lock(&hci_dev_list_lock)
<deadlock #2>
hci_unregister_dev()
--> write_lock(&hci_dev_list_lock)
<interrupt>
--> a2mp_chan_recv_cb()
--> a2mp_discover_req()
--> read_lock(&hci_dev_list_lock)
This flaw was found by an experimental static analysis tool I am
developing for irq-related deadlock.
To prevent the potential problem, I change to write_lock_bh().
Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
---
net/bluetooth/hci_core.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
index a5992f1b3c9b..dd3107daed03 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
@@ -2670,9 +2670,9 @@ int hci_register_dev(struct hci_dev *hdev)
hci_dev_set_flag(hdev, HCI_BREDR_ENABLED);
}
- write_lock(&hci_dev_list_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(&hci_dev_list_lock);
list_add(&hdev->list, &hci_dev_list);
- write_unlock(&hci_dev_list_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(&hci_dev_list_lock);
/* Devices that are marked for raw-only usage are unconfigured
* and should not be included in normal operation.
@@ -2720,9 +2720,9 @@ void hci_unregister_dev(struct hci_dev *hdev)
hci_dev_set_flag(hdev, HCI_UNREGISTER);
mutex_unlock(&hdev->unregister_lock);
- write_lock(&hci_dev_list_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(&hci_dev_list_lock);
list_del(&hdev->list);
- write_unlock(&hci_dev_list_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(&hci_dev_list_lock);
cancel_work_sync(&hdev->power_on);
--
2.17.1
reply other threads:[~2023-09-27 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20230927161358.32353-1-dg573847474@gmail.com \
--to=dg573847474@gmail.com \
--cc=johan.hedberg@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®