Transport assignment may race with module unload. Protect new_transport
from becoming a stale pointer.
This also takes care of an insecure call in vsock_use_local_transport();
add a lockdep assert.
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: fffffbfff8056000
Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN
RIP: 0010:vsock_assign_transport+0x366/0x600
Call Trace:
vsock_connect+0x59c/0xc40
__sys_connect+0xe8/0x100
__x64_sys_connect+0x6e/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x92/0x1c0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
Fixes: c0cfa2d8a788 ("vsock: add multi-transports support")
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
---
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index 337540efc237c8bc482a6730948fc773c00854f1..133d7c8d2231e5c2e5e6a697de3b104fe05d8020 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_enqueue_accept);
static bool vsock_use_local_transport(unsigned int remote_cid)
{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&vsock_register_mutex);
+
if (!transport_local)
return false;
@@ -464,6 +466,8 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
remote_flags = vsk->remote_addr.svm_flags;
+ mutex_lock(&vsock_register_mutex);
+
switch (sk->sk_type) {
case SOCK_DGRAM:
new_transport = transport_dgram;
@@ -479,12 +483,15 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
new_transport = transport_h2g;
break;
default:
- return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
+ ret = -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
+ goto unlock;
}
if (vsk->transport) {
- if (vsk->transport == new_transport)
- return 0;
+ if (vsk->transport == new_transport) {
+ ret = 0;
+ goto unlock;
+ }
/* transport->release() must be called with sock lock acquired.
* This path can only be taken during vsock_connect(), where we
@@ -508,8 +515,12 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
/* We increase the module refcnt to prevent the transport unloading
* while there are open sockets assigned to it.
*/
- if (!new_transport || !try_module_get(new_transport->module))
- return -ENODEV;
+ if (!new_transport || !try_module_get(new_transport->module)) {
+ ret = -ENODEV;
+ goto unlock;
+ }
+
+ mutex_unlock(&vsock_register_mutex);
if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_SEQPACKET) {
if (!new_transport->seqpacket_allow ||
@@ -528,6 +539,9 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
vsk->transport = new_transport;
return 0;
+unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&vsock_register_mutex);
+ return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_assign_transport);
--
2.49.0
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 02:34:02PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>Transport assignment may race with module unload. Protect new_transport
>from becoming a stale pointer.
>
>This also takes care of an insecure call in vsock_use_local_transport();
>add a lockdep assert.
>
>BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: fffffbfff8056000
>Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN
>RIP: 0010:vsock_assign_transport+0x366/0x600
>Call Trace:
> vsock_connect+0x59c/0xc40
> __sys_connect+0xe8/0x100
> __x64_sys_connect+0x6e/0xc0
> do_syscall_64+0x92/0x1c0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
>
>Fixes: c0cfa2d8a788 ("vsock: add multi-transports support")
>Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
>---
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>index 337540efc237c8bc482a6730948fc773c00854f1..133d7c8d2231e5c2e5e6a697de3b104fe05d8020 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
>@@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_enqueue_accept);
>
> static bool vsock_use_local_transport(unsigned int remote_cid)
> {
>+ lockdep_assert_held(&vsock_register_mutex);
>+
> if (!transport_local)
> return false;
>
>@@ -464,6 +466,8 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
>
> remote_flags = vsk->remote_addr.svm_flags;
>
>+ mutex_lock(&vsock_register_mutex);
>+
> switch (sk->sk_type) {
> case SOCK_DGRAM:
> new_transport = transport_dgram;
>@@ -479,12 +483,15 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
> new_transport = transport_h2g;
> break;
> default:
>- return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
>+ ret = -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT;
>+ goto unlock;
> }
>
> if (vsk->transport) {
>- if (vsk->transport == new_transport)
>- return 0;
>+ if (vsk->transport == new_transport) {
>+ ret = 0;
>+ goto unlock;
>+ }
>
> /* transport->release() must be called with sock lock acquired.
> * This path can only be taken during vsock_connect(), where we
>@@ -508,8 +515,12 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
> /* We increase the module refcnt to prevent the transport unloading
> * while there are open sockets assigned to it.
> */
>- if (!new_transport || !try_module_get(new_transport->module))
>- return -ENODEV;
>+ if (!new_transport || !try_module_get(new_transport->module)) {
>+ ret = -ENODEV;
>+ goto unlock;
>+ }
>+
I'd add a comment here to explain that we can release it since we
successfully increased the `new_transport` refcnt.
>+ mutex_unlock(&vsock_register_mutex);
>
> if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_SEQPACKET) {
> if (!new_transport->seqpacket_allow ||
>@@ -528,6 +539,9 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
> vsk->transport = new_transport;
>
> return 0;
>+unlock:
I'd call it `err:` so it's clear is the error path.
Thanks,
Stefano
>+ mutex_unlock(&vsock_register_mutex);
>+ return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_assign_transport);
>
>
>--
>2.49.0
>
On 6/20/25 10:37, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> - if (!new_transport || !try_module_get(new_transport->module))
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> + if (!new_transport || !try_module_get(new_transport->module)) {
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>
> I'd add a comment here to explain that we can release it since we
> successfully increased the `new_transport` refcnt.
Sure, will do.
>> + mutex_unlock(&vsock_register_mutex);
>>
>> if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_SEQPACKET) {
>> if (!new_transport->seqpacket_allow ||
>> @@ -528,6 +539,9 @@ int vsock_assign_transport(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct vsock_sock *psk)
>> vsk->transport = new_transport;
>>
>> return 0;
>> +unlock:
>
> I'd call it `err:` so it's clear is the error path.
Right, that makes sense.
Thanks!
Michal
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.