On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:26:25PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 6/27/25 10:08, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 09:52:44PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
Transport assignment may race with module unload. Protect new_transport
from becoming a stale pointer.
This also takes care of an insecure call in vsock_use_local_transport();
add a lockdep assert.
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: fffffbfff8056000
Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN
RIP: 0010:vsock_assign_transport+0x366/0x600
Call Trace:
vsock_connect+0x59c/0xc40
__sys_connect+0xe8/0x100
__x64_sys_connect+0x6e/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x92/0x1c0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
Fixes: c0cfa2d8a788 ("vsock: add multi-transports support")
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@xxxxxxx>
---
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index 63a920af5bfe6960306a3e5eeae0cbf30648985e..a1b1073a2c89f865fcdb58b38d8e7feffcf1544f 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_enqueue_accept);
static bool vsock_use_local_transport(unsigned int remote_cid)
{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&vsock_register_mutex);
+
if (!transport_local)
return false;
@@ -464,6 +466,8 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
remote_flags = vsk->remote_addr.svm_flags;
+ mutex_lock(&vsock_register_mutex);
+
switch (sk->sk_type) {
case SOCK_DGRAM:
new_transport = transport_dgram;
@@ -479,12 +483,15 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
new_transport = transport_h2g;
break;
default:
- return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
+ ret = -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
+ goto err;
}
if (vsk->transport) {
- if (vsk->transport == new_transport)
- return 0;
+ if (vsk->transport == new_transport) {
+ ret = 0;
+ goto err;
+ }
/* transport->release() must be called with sock lock acquired.
* This path can only be taken during vsock_connect(), where we
* have already held the sock lock. In the other cases, this
* function is called on a new socket which is not assigned to
* any transport.
*/
vsk->transport->release(vsk);
vsock_deassign_transport(vsk);
Thinking back to this patch, could there be a deadlock between call
vsock_deassign_transport(), which call module_put(), now with the
`vsock_register_mutex` held, and the call to vsock_core_unregister()
usually made by modules in the exit function?
I think we're good. module_put() does not call the module cleanup function
(kernel/module/main.c:delete_module() syscall does that), so
vsock_core_unregister() won't happen in this path here. Have I missed
anything else?
Nope, I reached the same conclusion!
Thanks,
Stefano
