[PATCH v2] net: nfc: fix deadlock between nfc_unregister_device and rfkill_fop_write

[Deepanshu Kartikey]

A deadlock can occur between nfc_unregister_device() and rfkill_fop_write()
due to lock ordering inversion between device_lock and rfkill_global_mutex.

The problematic lock order is:

Thread A (rfkill_fop_write):
  rfkill_fop_write()
    mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex)
      rfkill_set_block()
        nfc_rfkill_set_block()
          nfc_dev_down()
            device_lock(&dev->dev)    <- waits for device_lock

Thread B (nfc_unregister_device):
  nfc_unregister_device()
    device_lock(&dev->dev)
      rfkill_unregister()
        mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex)  <- waits for rfkill_global_mutex

This creates a classic ABBA deadlock scenario.

Fix this by moving rfkill_unregister() and rfkill_destroy() outside the
device_lock critical section. Store the rfkill pointer in a local variable
before releasing the lock, then call rfkill_unregister() after releasing
device_lock.

This change is safe because rfkill_fop_write() holds rfkill_global_mutex
while calling the rfkill callbacks, and rfkill_unregister() also acquires
rfkill_global_mutex before cleanup. Therefore, rfkill_unregister() will
wait for any ongoing callback to complete before proceeding, and
device_del() is only called after rfkill_unregister() returns, preventing
any use-after-free.

The similar lock ordering in nfc_register_device() (device_lock ->
rfkill_global_mutex via rfkill_register) is safe because during
registration the device is not yet in rfkill_list, so no concurrent
rfkill operations can occur on this device.

Fixes: 3e3b5dfcd16a ("NFC: reorder the logic in nfc_{un,}register_device")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reported-by: syzbot+4ef89409a235d804c6c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=4ef89409a235d804c6c2
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217054908.178907-1-kartikey406@xxxxxxxxx/T/ [v1]
Signed-off-by: Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@xxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
  - Added explanation of why UAF is not possible
  - Added explanation of why nfc_register_device() is safe
  - Added Fixes and Cc: stable tags
  - Fixed blank line after variable declaration (kept it)
---
 net/nfc/core.c | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/nfc/core.c b/net/nfc/core.c
index ae1c842f9c64..82f023f37754 100644
--- a/net/nfc/core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/core.c
@@ -1154,6 +1154,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(nfc_register_device);
 void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
 {
 	int rc;
+	struct rfkill *rfk = NULL;
 
 	pr_debug("dev_name=%s\n", dev_name(&dev->dev));
 
@@ -1164,13 +1165,17 @@ void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
 
 	device_lock(&dev->dev);
 	if (dev->rfkill) {
-		rfkill_unregister(dev->rfkill);
-		rfkill_destroy(dev->rfkill);
+		rfk = dev->rfkill;
 		dev->rfkill = NULL;
 	}
 	dev->shutting_down = true;
 	device_unlock(&dev->dev);
 
+	if (rfk) {
+		rfkill_unregister(rfk);
+		rfkill_destroy(rfk);
+	}
+
 	if (dev->ops->check_presence) {
 		timer_delete_sync(&dev->check_pres_timer);
 		cancel_work_sync(&dev->check_pres_work);
-- 
2.43.0