| Message ID | 20230201220704.1543663-1-luiz.dentz@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Bluetooth: L2CAP: Fix potential user-after-free | expand |
This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! Dear submitter, Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. This is a CI test results with your patch series: PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=717902 ---Test result--- Test Summary: CheckPatch PASS 1.17 seconds GitLint PASS 0.36 seconds SubjectPrefix PASS 0.13 seconds BuildKernel PASS 37.93 seconds CheckAllWarning PASS 41.71 seconds CheckSparse PASS 46.75 seconds CheckSmatch PASS 126.54 seconds BuildKernel32 PASS 36.61 seconds TestRunnerSetup PASS 525.34 seconds TestRunner_l2cap-tester PASS 18.69 seconds TestRunner_iso-tester PASS 20.41 seconds TestRunner_bnep-tester PASS 6.76 seconds TestRunner_mgmt-tester PASS 129.22 seconds TestRunner_rfcomm-tester PASS 10.65 seconds TestRunner_sco-tester PASS 9.84 seconds TestRunner_ioctl-tester PASS 11.64 seconds TestRunner_mesh-tester PASS 8.60 seconds TestRunner_smp-tester PASS 9.80 seconds TestRunner_userchan-tester PASS 7.09 seconds IncrementalBuild PASS 34.40 seconds --- Regards, Linux Bluetooth
Hi Alex, On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > Dear submitter, > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=717902 > > ---Test result--- > > Test Summary: > CheckPatch PASS 1.17 seconds > GitLint PASS 0.36 seconds > SubjectPrefix PASS 0.13 seconds > BuildKernel PASS 37.93 seconds > CheckAllWarning PASS 41.71 seconds > CheckSparse PASS 46.75 seconds > CheckSmatch PASS 126.54 seconds > BuildKernel32 PASS 36.61 seconds > TestRunnerSetup PASS 525.34 seconds > TestRunner_l2cap-tester PASS 18.69 seconds > TestRunner_iso-tester PASS 20.41 seconds > TestRunner_bnep-tester PASS 6.76 seconds > TestRunner_mgmt-tester PASS 129.22 seconds > TestRunner_rfcomm-tester PASS 10.65 seconds > TestRunner_sco-tester PASS 9.84 seconds > TestRunner_ioctl-tester PASS 11.64 seconds > TestRunner_mesh-tester PASS 8.60 seconds > TestRunner_smp-tester PASS 9.80 seconds > TestRunner_userchan-tester PASS 7.09 seconds > IncrementalBuild PASS 34.40 seconds Looks like it is good with our tests in CI, that said I do wonder if you guys could enable it to run tests that may trigger these problems, since they normally are not found by normal tests. > > > --- > Regards, > Linux Bluetooth >
Hello: This patch was applied to bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git (master) by Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@intel.com>: On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 14:07:03 -0800 you wrote: > From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@intel.com> > > This fixes all instances of which requires to allocate a buffer calling > alloc_skb which may release the chan lock and reacquire later which > makes it possible that the chan is disconnected in the meantime. > > Fixes: a6a5568c03c4 ("Bluetooth: Lock the L2CAP channel when sending") > Reported-by: Alexander Coffin <alex.coffin@matician.com> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@intel.com> > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - Bluetooth: L2CAP: Fix potential user-after-free https://git.kernel.org/bluetooth/bluetooth-next/c/c076b7d4e311 You are awesome, thank you!
Hi Luiz, Sorry about the very slow response, but I just wanted to make sure that it worked well on our robots for a while (the crashes were sporadic before) before I confirmed that this patch seemed good. We have seen no issues with your proposed patch, and I would be happy to sign off on it if that matters (I don't do much kernel contribution so I don't really know if my sign off means anything). Regards, Alexander Coffin On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=717902 > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > Test Summary: > > CheckPatch PASS 1.17 seconds > > GitLint PASS 0.36 seconds > > SubjectPrefix PASS 0.13 seconds > > BuildKernel PASS 37.93 seconds > > CheckAllWarning PASS 41.71 seconds > > CheckSparse PASS 46.75 seconds > > CheckSmatch PASS 126.54 seconds > > BuildKernel32 PASS 36.61 seconds > > TestRunnerSetup PASS 525.34 seconds > > TestRunner_l2cap-tester PASS 18.69 seconds > > TestRunner_iso-tester PASS 20.41 seconds > > TestRunner_bnep-tester PASS 6.76 seconds > > TestRunner_mgmt-tester PASS 129.22 seconds > > TestRunner_rfcomm-tester PASS 10.65 seconds > > TestRunner_sco-tester PASS 9.84 seconds > > TestRunner_ioctl-tester PASS 11.64 seconds > > TestRunner_mesh-tester PASS 8.60 seconds > > TestRunner_smp-tester PASS 9.80 seconds > > TestRunner_userchan-tester PASS 7.09 seconds > > IncrementalBuild PASS 34.40 seconds > > Looks like it is good with our tests in CI, that said I do wonder if > you guys could enable it to run tests that may trigger these problems, > since they normally are not found by normal tests. > > > > > > > --- > > Regards, > > Linux Bluetooth > > > > > -- > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
Hi Alex, On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 4:45 PM Alexander Coffin <alex.coffin@matician.com> wrote: > > Hi Luiz, > > Sorry about the very slow response, but I just wanted to make sure > that it worked well on our robots for a while (the crashes were > sporadic before) before I confirmed that this patch seemed good. We > have seen no issues with your proposed patch, and I would be happy to > sign off on it if that matters (I don't do much kernel contribution so > I don't really know if my sign off means anything). It has been applied already, but thanks to confirming it is good to go. > Regards, > Alexander Coffin > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:47 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz > <luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM <bluez.test.bot@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! > > > > > > Dear submitter, > > > > > > Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. > > > This is a CI test results with your patch series: > > > PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=717902 > > > > > > ---Test result--- > > > > > > Test Summary: > > > CheckPatch PASS 1.17 seconds > > > GitLint PASS 0.36 seconds > > > SubjectPrefix PASS 0.13 seconds > > > BuildKernel PASS 37.93 seconds > > > CheckAllWarning PASS 41.71 seconds > > > CheckSparse PASS 46.75 seconds > > > CheckSmatch PASS 126.54 seconds > > > BuildKernel32 PASS 36.61 seconds > > > TestRunnerSetup PASS 525.34 seconds > > > TestRunner_l2cap-tester PASS 18.69 seconds > > > TestRunner_iso-tester PASS 20.41 seconds > > > TestRunner_bnep-tester PASS 6.76 seconds > > > TestRunner_mgmt-tester PASS 129.22 seconds > > > TestRunner_rfcomm-tester PASS 10.65 seconds > > > TestRunner_sco-tester PASS 9.84 seconds > > > TestRunner_ioctl-tester PASS 11.64 seconds > > > TestRunner_mesh-tester PASS 8.60 seconds > > > TestRunner_smp-tester PASS 9.80 seconds > > > TestRunner_userchan-tester PASS 7.09 seconds > > > IncrementalBuild PASS 34.40 seconds > > > > Looks like it is good with our tests in CI, that said I do wonder if > > you guys could enable it to run tests that may trigger these problems, > > since they normally are not found by normal tests. > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Regards, > > > Linux Bluetooth > > > > > > > > > -- > > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c index a3e0dc6a6e73..adfc3ea06d08 100644 --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c @@ -2683,14 +2683,6 @@ int l2cap_chan_send(struct l2cap_chan *chan, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) if (IS_ERR(skb)) return PTR_ERR(skb); - /* Channel lock is released before requesting new skb and then - * reacquired thus we need to recheck channel state. - */ - if (chan->state != BT_CONNECTED) { - kfree_skb(skb); - return -ENOTCONN; - } - l2cap_do_send(chan, skb); return len; } @@ -2735,14 +2727,6 @@ int l2cap_chan_send(struct l2cap_chan *chan, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) if (IS_ERR(skb)) return PTR_ERR(skb); - /* Channel lock is released before requesting new skb and then - * reacquired thus we need to recheck channel state. - */ - if (chan->state != BT_CONNECTED) { - kfree_skb(skb); - return -ENOTCONN; - } - l2cap_do_send(chan, skb); err = len; break; @@ -2763,14 +2747,6 @@ int l2cap_chan_send(struct l2cap_chan *chan, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) */ err = l2cap_segment_sdu(chan, &seg_queue, msg, len); - /* The channel could have been closed while segmenting, - * check that it is still connected. - */ - if (chan->state != BT_CONNECTED) { - __skb_queue_purge(&seg_queue); - err = -ENOTCONN; - } - if (err) break; diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c index ca8f07f3542b..eebe256104bc 100644 --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c @@ -1624,6 +1624,14 @@ static struct sk_buff *l2cap_sock_alloc_skb_cb(struct l2cap_chan *chan, if (!skb) return ERR_PTR(err); + /* Channel lock is released before requesting new skb and then + * reacquired thus we need to recheck channel state. + */ + if (chan->state != BT_CONNECTED) { + kfree_skb(skb); + return ERR_PTR(-ENOTCONN); + } + skb->priority = sk->sk_priority; bt_cb(skb)->l2cap.chan = chan;