You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
[ Upstream commit 1e82a62 ]
A potential deadlock can occur during registering or unregistering a
new generic netlink family between the main nl_table_lock and the
cb_lock where each thread wants the lock held by the other, as
demonstrated below.
1) Thread 1 is performing a netlink_bind() operation on a socket. As part
of this call, it will call netlink_lock_table(), incrementing the
nl_table_users count to 1.
2) Thread 2 is registering (or unregistering) a genl_family via the
genl_(un)register_family() API. The cb_lock semaphore will be taken for
writing.
3) Thread 1 will call genl_bind() as part of the bind operation to handle
subscribing to GENL multicast groups at the request of the user. It will
attempt to take the cb_lock semaphore for reading, but it will fail and
be scheduled away, waiting for Thread 2 to finish the write.
4) Thread 2 will call netlink_table_grab() during the (un)registration
call. However, as Thread 1 has incremented nl_table_users, it will not
be able to proceed, and both threads will be stuck waiting for the
other.
genl_bind() is a noop, unless a genl_family implements the mcast_bind()
function to handle setting up family-specific multicast operations. Since
no one in-tree uses this functionality as Cong pointed out, simply removing
the genl_bind() function will remove the possibility for deadlock, as there
is no attempt by Thread 1 above to take the cb_lock semaphore.
Fixes: c380d9a ("genetlink: pass multicast bind/unbind to families")
Suggested-by: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sean Tranchetti <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
0 commit comments