Overview
About vulnerability
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd
Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa’s suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on “struct p9_client”->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().
Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c’s lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c’s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c’s protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport’s state machine)
Details
- Affected product:
- AlmaLinux 9.2 ESU , CentOS 6 ELS , CentOS 7 ELS , CentOS 8.4 ELS , CentOS 8.5 ELS , CentOS Stream 8 ELS , CloudLinux 6 ELS , CloudLinux 7 ELS , Oracle Linux 6 ELS , Oracle Linux 7 ELS , RHEL 7 ELS , TuxCare 9.6 ESU , Ubuntu 16.04 ELS , Ubuntu 18.04 ELS , Ubuntu 20.04 ELS
- Affected packages:
- kernel @ 2.6.32 (+16 more)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd
Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa’s suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on “struct p9_client”->lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().
Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c’s lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c’s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c’s protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport’s state machine)