@@ -973,7 +973,8 @@ static int smc_connect_decline_fallback(struct smc_sock *smc, int reason_code,
return smc_connect_fallback(smc, reason_code);
}
-static void smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first)
+static void __smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first,
+ bool locked)
{
struct smc_connection *conn = &smc->conn;
struct smc_link_group *lgr = conn->lgr;
@@ -982,11 +983,27 @@ static void smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first)
if (smc_conn_lgr_valid(conn))
lgr_valid = true;
- smc_conn_free(conn);
+ if (!locked) {
+ lock_sock(&smc->sk);
+ smc_conn_free(conn);
+ release_sock(&smc->sk);
+ } else {
+ smc_conn_free(conn);
+ }
if (local_first && lgr_valid)
smc_lgr_cleanup_early(lgr);
}
+static void smc_conn_abort(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first)
+{
+ __smc_conn_abort(smc, local_first, false);
+}
+
+static void smc_conn_abort_locked(struct smc_sock *smc, int local_first)
+{
+ __smc_conn_abort(smc, local_first, true);
+}
+
/* check if there is a rdma device available for this connection. */
/* called for connect and listen */
static int smc_find_rdma_device(struct smc_sock *smc, struct smc_init_info *ini)
@@ -1352,7 +1369,7 @@ static int smc_connect_rdma(struct smc_sock *smc,
return 0;
connect_abort:
- smc_conn_abort(smc, ini->first_contact_local);
+ smc_conn_abort_locked(smc, ini->first_contact_local);
mutex_unlock(&smc_client_lgr_pending);
smc->connect_nonblock = 0;
@@ -1454,7 +1471,7 @@ static int smc_connect_ism(struct smc_sock *smc,
return 0;
connect_abort:
- smc_conn_abort(smc, ini->first_contact_local);
+ smc_conn_abort_locked(smc, ini->first_contact_local);
mutex_unlock(&smc_server_lgr_pending);
smc->connect_nonblock = 0;
We encountered a LGR/link use-after-free issue, which manifested as the LGR/link refcnt reaching 0 early and entering the clear process, making resource access unsafe. refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free. WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 107447 at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0x9c/0x140 Workqueue: events smc_lgr_terminate_work [smc] Call trace: refcount_warn_saturate+0x9c/0x140 __smc_lgr_terminate.part.45+0x2a8/0x370 [smc] smc_lgr_terminate_work+0x28/0x30 [smc] process_one_work+0x1b8/0x420 worker_thread+0x158/0x510 kthread+0x114/0x118 or refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free. WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 93140 at lib/refcount.c:28 refcount_warn_saturate+0xf0/0x140 Workqueue: smc_hs_wq smc_listen_work [smc] Call trace: refcount_warn_saturate+0xf0/0x140 smcr_link_put+0x1cc/0x1d8 [smc] smc_conn_free+0x110/0x1b0 [smc] smc_conn_abort+0x50/0x60 [smc] smc_listen_find_device+0x75c/0x790 [smc] smc_listen_work+0x368/0x8a0 [smc] process_one_work+0x1b8/0x420 worker_thread+0x158/0x510 kthread+0x114/0x118 It is caused by repeated release of LGR/link refcnt. One suspect is that smc_conn_free() is called repeatedly because some smc_conn_free() are not protected by sock lock. Calls under socklock | Calls not under socklock ------------------------------------------------------- lock_sock(sk) | smc_conn_abort smc_conn_free | \- smc_conn_free \- smcr_link_put | \- smcr_link_put (duplicated) release_sock(sk) So make sure smc_conn_free() is called under the sock lock. Fixes: 8cf3f3e42374 ("net/smc: use helper smc_conn_abort() in listen processing") Co-developed-by: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com> Signed-off-by: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com> Co-developed-by: Kai <KaiShen@linux.alibaba.com> Signed-off-by: Kai <KaiShen@linux.alibaba.com> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com> --- net/smc/af_smc.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)