Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:53:18 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        syzbot+96414aa0033c363d8458@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        Lihong Kou <koulihong@huawei.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 027/168] Bluetooth: add a mutex lock to avoid UAF in
 do_enale_set
Message-ID: <20200818095318.GA57268@kroah.com>
References: <20200817143733.692105228@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200817143735.099152549@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200818094024.GB10974@amd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200818094024.GB10974@amd>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:40:25AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > From: Lihong Kou <koulihong@huawei.com>
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit f9c70bdc279b191da8d60777c627702c06e4a37d ]
> > 
> > In the case we set or free the global value listen_chan in
> > different threads, we can encounter the UAF problems because
> > the method is not protected by any lock, add one to avoid
> > this bug.
> 
> For this to be safe, bt_6lowpan_exit() needs same handling, no?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de>
> 
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/6lowpan.c b/net/bluetooth/6lowpan.c
> index 9a75f9b00b51..2402ef5ac072 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/6lowpan.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/6lowpan.c
> @@ -1304,10 +1304,12 @@ static void __exit bt_6lowpan_exit(void)
>  	debugfs_remove(lowpan_enable_debugfs);
>  	debugfs_remove(lowpan_control_debugfs);
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&set_lock);
>  	if (listen_chan) {
>  		l2cap_chan_close(listen_chan, 0);
>  		l2cap_chan_put(listen_chan);
>  	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&set_lock);
>  
>  	disconnect_devices();
>  
> 
> 

Why you are sending this in this format seems very odd to me, you know
better...