@@ -1803,7 +1803,9 @@ static u8 smp_cmd_pairing_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sk_buff *skb)
return 0;
}
+ hci_dev_lock(dev);
build_pairing_cmd(conn, req, &rsp, auth);
+ hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
if (rsp.auth_req & SMP_AUTH_SC) {
set_bit(SMP_FLAG_SC, &smp->flags);
@@ -2335,7 +2337,9 @@ static u8 smp_cmd_security_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sk_buff *skb)
skb_pull(skb, sizeof(*rp));
memset(&cp, 0, sizeof(cp));
+ hci_dev_lock(hdev);
build_pairing_cmd(conn, &cp, NULL, auth);
+ hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
smp->preq[0] = SMP_CMD_PAIRING_REQ;
memcpy(&smp->preq[1], &cp, sizeof(cp));
@@ -2380,6 +2384,7 @@ int smp_conn_security(struct hci_conn *hcon, __u8 sec_level)
return 1;
}
+ hci_dev_lock(hcon->hdev);
l2cap_chan_lock(chan);
/* If SMP is already in progress ignore this request */
@@ -2435,6 +2440,7 @@ int smp_conn_security(struct hci_conn *hcon, __u8 sec_level)
unlock:
l2cap_chan_unlock(chan);
+ hci_dev_unlock(hcon->hdev);
return ret;
}
Accesses to hci_dev->remote_oob_data are protected by the hdev lock, except for the access in build_pairing_cmd via hci_find_remote_oob_data. Adding the lock around the access in build_pairing_cmd would cause a lock ordering problem: the l2cap_chan_lock is taken in the caller smp_conn_security, while the hdev lock should be taken before the chan lock. The solution is to add the hdev lock to the callsites of build_pairing_cmd. Fixes: 02b05bd8b0a6 ("Bluetooth: Set SMP OOB flag if OOB data is available") Signed-off-by: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com> --- Note: I am currently working on a static analyser to detect missing locks using type-based static analysis, which reported the missing lock on v6.0-rc5. I manually verified the report by looking at the code, so that I do not send wrong information or patches. After concluding that this seems to be a true positive, I created this patch. I have only managed to compile-test this patch on x86_64. After applying the patch, my analyser no longer reports the potential bug. net/bluetooth/smp.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)