Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@cea.fr>,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] 9p/trans_fd: abort p9_read_work if req status changed
Date:   Tue,  9 Oct 2018 06:05:55 +0200
Message-Id: <1539057956-23741-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181009020949.GA29622@nautica>
References: <20181009020949.GA29622@nautica>
To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@cea.fr>

p9_read_work would try to handle an errored req even if it got put to
error state by another thread between the lookup (that worked) and the
time it had been fully read.
The request itself is safe to use because we hold a ref to it from the
lookup (for m->rreq, so it was safe to read into the request data buffer
until this point), but the req_list has been deleted at the same time
status changed, and client_cb already has been called as well, so we
should not do either.

Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@cea.fr>
Reported-by: syzbot+2222c34dc40b515f30dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
Cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
---

As written in reply to the bug report I'm not sure it's what syzbot
complained about exactly, but it feels like a correct thing to do.
The second patch is unrelated to the syzbot report, but something that
occured to me while looking at this ; I'll take both into linux-next
around the start of next week after getting some proper testing done
unless remarks happen.
(they pass basic tests already)

 net/9p/trans_fd.c | 17 +++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/9p/trans_fd.c b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
index 12559c474dde..a0317d459cde 100644
--- a/net/9p/trans_fd.c
+++ b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
@@ -292,7 +292,6 @@ static void p9_read_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	__poll_t n;
 	int err;
 	struct p9_conn *m;
-	int status = REQ_STATUS_ERROR;
 
 	m = container_of(work, struct p9_conn, rq);
 
@@ -375,11 +374,17 @@ static void p9_read_work(struct work_struct *work)
 		p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_TRANS, "got new packet\n");
 		m->rreq->rc.size = m->rc.offset;
 		spin_lock(&m->client->lock);
-		if (m->rreq->status != REQ_STATUS_ERROR)
-			status = REQ_STATUS_RCVD;
-		list_del(&m->rreq->req_list);
-		/* update req->status while holding client->lock  */
-		p9_client_cb(m->client, m->rreq, status);
+		if (m->rreq->status == REQ_STATUS_SENT) {
+			list_del(&m->rreq->req_list);
+			p9_client_cb(m->client, m->rreq, REQ_STATUS_RCVD);
+		} else {
+			spin_unlock(&m->client->lock);
+			p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_ERROR,
+				 "Request tag %d errored out while we were reading the reply\n",
+				 m->rc.tag);
+			err = -EIO;
+			goto error;
+		}
 		spin_unlock(&m->client->lock);
 		m->rc.sdata = NULL;
 		m->rc.offset = 0;
-- 
2.19.1