Ensure connect() resets the socket only if it has never been established.
Handle the previously overlooked TCP_ESTABLISHED -> TCP_CLOSING
transition (on VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RST), which could race with the connect
loop.

Resetting a socket that is still present in connected_table can lead to
memory corruption. The reporter noted lost transports for in-flight skbs,
and I have reproduced crashes caused by re-insertion into connected_table.

  list_add double add: new=, prev=, next=.
  kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:35!
  Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI
  Workqueue: vsock-loopback vsock_loopback_work
  RIP: 0010:__list_add_valid_or_report+0x11f/0x130
  Call Trace:
   vsock_insert_connected.cold+0xe/0x13
   virtio_transport_recv_pkt+0x10e9/0x1460
   vsock_loopback_work+0x305/0x480
   process_one_work+0xe4c/0x1560
   worker_thread+0x4f1/0xd60
   kthread+0x36e/0x470
   ret_from_fork+0x47b/0x6b0
   ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

Drop the inaccurate comment above signal_pending(). This fix is
supplementary to commit 002541ef650b ("vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on
connect() if already established"). Details at Link.

Fixes: d021c344051a ("VSOCK: Introduce VM Sockets")
Reported-by: Hyunwoo Kim <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/anzT1fREOSyHT99k@v4bel/
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <[email protected]>
---
Note that this is not a complete fix. connect()'s schedule_timeout() can
still race with two other functions that set sk_state = TCP_CLOSE while
keeping the socket in connected_table:
1. vmci_transport_handle_detach(): no way for me to test,
2. virtio_vsock_reset_sock(): tested by unbinding the driver
   (/sys/bus/virtio/drivers/virtio_transport/unbind).
The latter appears easy to fix by adding __vsock_remove_connected() and
switching to a _safe iterator in vsock_for_each_connected_socket().
---
 net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 14 ++++++--------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
index f840498b58af..eec5dd6daebb 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -1834,23 +1834,20 @@ static int vsock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct 
sockaddr_unsized *addr,
                timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
                lock_sock(sk);
 
-               /* Connection established. Whatever happens to socket once we
-                * release it, that's not connect()'s concern. No need to go
+               /* Connection was established. Whatever happens to socket once
+                * we release it, that's not connect()'s concern. No need to go
                 * into signal and timeout handling. Call it a day.
                 *
                 * Note that allowing to "reset" an already established socket
                 * here is racy and insecure.
                 */
-               if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED)
+               if (sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED ||
+                   sk->sk_state == TCP_CLOSING)
                        break;
 
                /* If connection was _not_ established and a signal/timeout came
                 * to be, we want the socket's state reset. User space may want
                 * to retry.
-                *
-                * sk_state != TCP_ESTABLISHED implies that socket is not on
-                * vsock_connected_table. We keep the binding and the transport
-                * assigned.
                 */
                if (signal_pending(current) || timeout == 0) {
                        err = timeout == 0 ? -ETIMEDOUT : 
sock_intr_errno(timeout);
@@ -1875,7 +1872,8 @@ static int vsock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct 
sockaddr_unsized *addr,
        }
 
        err = sock_error(sk);
-       if (err) {
+       if (err &&
+           sk->sk_state != TCP_ESTABLISHED && sk->sk_state != TCP_CLOSING) {
                sk->sk_state = TCP_CLOSE;
                sock->state = SS_UNCONNECTED;
        }

---
base-commit: 9a1599eeb8d18a2113e4cabcbd3bec5a8377dbed
change-id: 20260820-vsock-connect-reset-closing-98dd28769d7f

Best regards,
--  
Michal Luczaj <[email protected]>


Reply via email to