Re: [PATCH net v3 1/3] sctp: Hold RCU read lock while iterating over address list

From: Simon Horman

Date: Wed Oct 29 2025 - 12:40:43 EST


On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 04:38:44PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 05:12:26PM +0100, Stefan Wiehler wrote:
> > With CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST=y and by executing
> >
> > $ netcat -l --sctp &
> > $ netcat --sctp localhost &
> > $ ss --sctp
> >
> > one can trigger the following Lockdep-RCU splat(s):
>
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/diag.c b/net/sctp/diag.c
> > index 996c2018f0e6..1a8761f87bf1 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/diag.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/diag.c
> > @@ -73,19 +73,23 @@ static int inet_diag_msg_sctpladdrs_fill(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > struct nlattr *attr;
> > void *info = NULL;
> >
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, address_list, list)
> > addrcnt++;
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > attr = nla_reserve(skb, INET_DIAG_LOCALS, addrlen * addrcnt);
> > if (!attr)
> > return -EMSGSIZE;
> >
> > info = nla_data(attr);
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> If the number of entries in list increases while rcu_read_lock is not held,
> between when addrcnt is calculated and when info is written, then can an
> overrun occur while writing info?

Oops, I now see that is addressed in patch 2/3.
Sorry for not reading that before sending my previous email.

>
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, address_list, list) {
> > memcpy(info, &laddr->a, sizeof(laddr->a));
> > memset(info + sizeof(laddr->a), 0, addrlen - sizeof(laddr->a));
> > info += addrlen;
> > }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.51.0
> >