[PATCH OLK-6.6 0/2] CVE-2025-38305

CVE-2025-38305 Jeongjun Park (1): ptp: remove ptp->n_vclocks check logic in ptp_vclock_in_use() Vladimir Oltean (1): ptp: fix breakage after ptp_vclock_in_use() rework drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.34.1

From: Jeongjun Park <aha310510@gmail.com> stable inclusion from stable-v6.6.94 commit 259119595227fd20f6aa29d85abe086b6fdd9eb1 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ICLHN6 CVE: CVE-2025-38305 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 87f7ce260a3c838b49e1dc1ceedf1006795157a2 ] There is no disagreement that we should check both ptp->is_virtual_clock and ptp->n_vclocks to check if the ptp virtual clock is in use. However, when we acquire ptp->n_vclocks_mux to read ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use(), we observe a recursive lock in the call trace starting from n_vclocks_store(). ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.15.0-rc6 #1 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- syz.0.1540/13807 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888035a24868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ptp_vclock_in_use drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h:103 [inline] ffff888035a24868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ptp_clock_unregister+0x21/0x250 drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c:415 but task is already holding lock: ffff888030704868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: n_vclocks_store+0xf1/0x6d0 drivers/ptp/ptp_sysfs.c:215 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); lock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); *** DEADLOCK *** .... ============================================ The best way to solve this is to remove the logic that checks ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use(). The reason why this is appropriate is that any path that uses ptp->n_vclocks must unconditionally check if ptp->n_vclocks is greater than 0 before unregistering vclocks, and all functions are already written this way. And in the function that uses ptp->n_vclocks, we already get ptp->n_vclocks_mux before unregistering vclocks. Therefore, we need to remove the redundant check for ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use() to prevent recursive locking. Fixes: 73f37068d540 ("ptp: support ptp physical/virtual clocks conversion") Signed-off-by: Jeongjun Park <aha310510@gmail.com> Acked-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250520160717.7350-1-aha310510@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com> --- drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h | 12 +----------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h b/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h index 22ada6de90579..a35961b7c0462 100644 --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h @@ -94,17 +94,7 @@ static inline int queue_cnt(const struct timestamp_event_queue *q) /* Check if ptp virtual clock is in use */ static inline bool ptp_vclock_in_use(struct ptp_clock *ptp) { - bool in_use = false; - - if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux)) - return true; - - if (!ptp->is_virtual_clock && ptp->n_vclocks) - in_use = true; - - mutex_unlock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); - - return in_use; + return !ptp->is_virtual_clock; } /* Check if ptp clock shall be free running */ -- 2.34.1

From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> stable inclusion from stable-v6.6.95 commit a8c669bbc831eec2094ed9e2054a9a0bb81a6c52 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ICLHN6 CVE: CVE-2025-38305 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 5ab73b010cad294851e558f1d4714a85c6f206c7 ] What is broken -------------- ptp4l, and any other application which calls clock_adjtime() on a physical clock, is greeted with error -EBUSY after commit 87f7ce260a3c ("ptp: remove ptp->n_vclocks check logic in ptp_vclock_in_use()"). Explanation for the breakage ---------------------------- The blamed commit was based on the false assumption that ptp_vclock_in_use() callers already test for n_vclocks prior to calling this function. This is notably incorrect for the code path below, in which there is, in fact, no n_vclocks test: ptp_clock_adjtime() -> ptp_clock_freerun() -> ptp_vclock_in_use() The result is that any clock adjustment on any physical clock is now impossible. This is _despite_ there not being any vclock over this physical clock. $ ptp4l -i eno0 -2 -P -m ptp4l[58.425]: selected /dev/ptp0 as PTP clock [ 58.429749] ptp: physical clock is free running ptp4l[58.431]: Failed to open /dev/ptp0: Device or resource busy failed to create a clock $ cat /sys/class/ptp/ptp0/n_vclocks 0 The patch makes the ptp_vclock_in_use() function say "if it's not a virtual clock, then this physical clock does have virtual clocks on top". Then ptp_clock_freerun() uses this information to say "this physical clock has virtual clocks on top, so it must stay free-running". Then ptp_clock_adjtime() uses this information to say "well, if this physical clock has to be free-running, I can't do it, return -EBUSY". Simply put, ptp_vclock_in_use() cannot be simplified so as to remove the test whether vclocks are in use. What did the blamed commit intend to fix ---------------------------------------- The blamed commit presents a lockdep warning stating "possible recursive locking detected", with the n_vclocks_store() and ptp_clock_unregister() functions involved. The recursive locking seems this: n_vclocks_store() -> mutex_lock_interruptible(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux) // 1 -> device_for_each_child_reverse(..., unregister_vclock) -> unregister_vclock() -> ptp_vclock_unregister() -> ptp_clock_unregister() -> ptp_vclock_in_use() -> mutex_lock_interruptible(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux) // 2 The issue can be triggered by creating and then deleting vclocks: $ echo 2 > /sys/class/ptp/ptp0/n_vclocks $ echo 0 > /sys/class/ptp/ptp0/n_vclocks But note that in the original stack trace, the address of the first lock is different from the address of the second lock. This is because at step 1 marked above, &ptp->n_vclocks_mux is the lock of the parent (physical) PTP clock, and at step 2, the lock is of the child (virtual) PTP clock. They are different locks of different devices. In this situation there is no real deadlock, the lockdep warning is caused by the fact that the mutexes have the same lock class on both the parent and the child. Functionally it is fine. Proposed alternative solution ----------------------------- We must reintroduce the body of ptp_vclock_in_use() mostly as it was structured prior to the blamed commit, but avoid the lockdep warning. Based on the fact that vclocks cannot be nested on top of one another (ptp_is_attribute_visible() hides n_vclocks for virtual clocks), we already know that ptp->n_vclocks is zero for a virtual clock. And ptp->is_virtual_clock is a runtime invariant, established at ptp_clock_register() time and never changed. There is no need to serialize on any mutex in order to read ptp->is_virtual_clock, and we take advantage of that by moving it outside the lock. Thus, virtual clocks do not need to acquire &ptp->n_vclocks_mux at all, and step 2 in the code walkthrough above can simply go away. We can simply return false to the question "ptp_vclock_in_use(a virtual clock)". Other notes ----------- Releasing &ptp->n_vclocks_mux before ptp_vclock_in_use() returns execution seems racy, because the returned value can become stale as soon as the function returns and before the return value is used (i.e. n_vclocks_store() can run any time). The locking requirement should somehow be transferred to the caller, to ensure a longer life time for the returned value, but this seems out of scope for this severe bug fix. Because we are also fixing up the logic from the original commit, there is another Fixes: tag for that. Fixes: 87f7ce260a3c ("ptp: remove ptp->n_vclocks check logic in ptp_vclock_in_use()") Fixes: 73f37068d540 ("ptp: support ptp physical/virtual clocks conversion") Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250613174749.406826-2-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com> --- drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h b/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h index a35961b7c0462..0021f4773f7e6 100644 --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h @@ -94,7 +94,27 @@ static inline int queue_cnt(const struct timestamp_event_queue *q) /* Check if ptp virtual clock is in use */ static inline bool ptp_vclock_in_use(struct ptp_clock *ptp) { - return !ptp->is_virtual_clock; + bool in_use = false; + + /* Virtual clocks can't be stacked on top of virtual clocks. + * Avoid acquiring the n_vclocks_mux on virtual clocks, to allow this + * function to be called from code paths where the n_vclocks_mux of the + * parent physical clock is already held. Functionally that's not an + * issue, but lockdep would complain, because they have the same lock + * class. + */ + if (ptp->is_virtual_clock) + return false; + + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux)) + return true; + + if (ptp->n_vclocks) + in_use = true; + + mutex_unlock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); + + return in_use; } /* Check if ptp clock shall be free running */ -- 2.34.1

反馈: 您发送到kernel@openeuler.org的补丁/补丁集,已成功转换为PR! PR链接地址: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/pulls/17911 邮件列表地址:https://mailweb.openeuler.org/archives/list/kernel@openeuler.org/message/VV2... FeedBack: The patch(es) which you have sent to kernel@openeuler.org mailing list has been converted to a pull request successfully! Pull request link: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/pulls/17911 Mailing list address: https://mailweb.openeuler.org/archives/list/kernel@openeuler.org/message/VV2...
participants (2)
-
Chen Ridong
-
patchwork bot