diff mbox series

[v3,2/2] Bluetooth: fix inconsistent lock state in rfcomm_connect_ind

Message ID 20210721093832.78081-3-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com
State New
Headers show
Series Bluetooth: fix inconsistent lock states | expand

Commit Message

Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi July 21, 2021, 9:38 a.m. UTC
Commit fad003b6c8e3d ("Bluetooth: Fix inconsistent lock state with
RFCOMM") fixed a lockdep warning due to sk->sk_lock.slock being
acquired without disabling softirq while the lock is also used in
softirq context. This was done by disabling interrupts before calling
bh_lock_sock in rfcomm_sk_state_change.

Later, this was changed in commit e6da0edc24ee ("Bluetooth: Acquire
sk_lock.slock without disabling interrupts") to disable softirqs
only.

However, there is another instance of sk->sk_lock.slock being acquired
without disabling softirq in rfcomm_connect_ind. This patch fixes this
by disabling local bh before the call to bh_lock_sock.

Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
---
 net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Marcel Holtmann July 30, 2021, 1:40 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi Desmond,

>>> Commit fad003b6c8e3d ("Bluetooth: Fix inconsistent lock state with
>>> RFCOMM") fixed a lockdep warning due to sk->sk_lock.slock being
>>> acquired without disabling softirq while the lock is also used in
>>> softirq context. This was done by disabling interrupts before calling
>>> bh_lock_sock in rfcomm_sk_state_change.
>>> 
>>> Later, this was changed in commit e6da0edc24ee ("Bluetooth: Acquire
>>> sk_lock.slock without disabling interrupts") to disable softirqs
>>> only.
>>> 
>>> However, there is another instance of sk->sk_lock.slock being acquired
>>> without disabling softirq in rfcomm_connect_ind. This patch fixes this
>>> by disabling local bh before the call to bh_lock_sock.
>> back in the days, the packet processing was done in a tasklet, but these days it is done in a workqueue. So shouldn’t this be just converted into a lock_sock(). Am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks for the info. I think you're right, I just didn't understand very much when I wrote this patch.
> 
> If I'm understanding correctly, it seems that both the bh_lock_sock in rfcomm_connect_ind, and spin_lock_bh in rfcomm_sk_state_change need to be changed to lock_sock, otherwise they don't provide any synchronization with other functions in RFCOMM that use lock_sock.
> 
> If that sounds correct I can prepare the patch for that.

please do so and re-run the tests. Thanks.

Regards

Marcel
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c
index ae6f80730561..d8734abb2df4 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c
@@ -974,6 +974,7 @@  int rfcomm_connect_ind(struct rfcomm_session *s, u8 channel, struct rfcomm_dlc *
 	if (!parent)
 		return 0;
 
+	local_bh_disable();
 	bh_lock_sock(parent);
 
 	/* Check for backlog size */
@@ -1002,6 +1003,7 @@  int rfcomm_connect_ind(struct rfcomm_session *s, u8 channel, struct rfcomm_dlc *
 
 done:
 	bh_unlock_sock(parent);
+	local_bh_enable();
 
 	if (test_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, &bt_sk(parent)->flags))
 		parent->sk_state_change(parent);