Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Initialize smc hashtables before registering users

On 17.12.25 16:25, Dust Li wrote:

On 2025-12-17 12:48:19, Alexandra Winter wrote:

quoted

During initialisation of the SMC module initialize smc_v4/6_hashinfo before
calling smc_nl_init(), proto_register() or sock_register(), to avoid a race
that can cause use of an uninitialised pointer in case an smc protocol is
called before the module is done initialising.

syzbot report:
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000008-0x000000000000000f]
Call Trace:
<TASK>
smc_diag_dump+0x59/0xa0 net/smc/smc_diag.c:236
netlink_dump+0x647/0xd80 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2325
__netlink_dump_start+0x59f/0x780 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2440
netlink_dump_start include/linux/netlink.h:339 [inline]
smc_diag_handler_dump+0x1ab/0x250 net/smc/smc_diag.c:251
sock_diag_rcv_msg+0x3dc/0x5f0
netlink_rcv_skb+0x1e3/0x430 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2550
netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1331 [inline]
netlink_unicast+0x7f0/0x990 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1357
netlink_sendmsg+0x8e4/0xcb0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1901

I don't think this is related to smc_nl_init().

Here the calltrace is smc_diag_dump(), which was registered in
sock_diag_register(&smc_diag_handler).

But smc_nl_init() is registering the general netlink in SMC,
which is unrelated to smc_diag_dump().

I had assumed some dependency between the smc netlink diag socket and smc_nl_init()
and wrongly assumed that the smc_diag_init() and smc_init() could race.
I now understand that modprobe will ensure smc_diag_init() is called before smc_init(),
so you are right: this patch is indeed NOT a fix for this sysbot report [1]

I think the root cause should be related to the initializing between
smc_diag.ko and smc_v4/6_hashinfo.ht.

Given modprobe initializes the modules sequentially, I do not see how these could race.

I guess this syszbot report was fixed by
f584239a9ed2 ("net/smc: fix general protection fault in __smc_diag_dump")
as reported in [2] .

I'm not sure about the correct procedure, if nobody recommends a better action, I'll send a

#syz dup: general protection fault in __smc_diag_dump
to
syzbot+f69bfae0a4eb29976e44@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
(this one: general protection fault in smc_diag_dump_proto [1])


I still think initializing the hashtables before smc_nl_init()
makes sense. I'll resend this patch without mentioning syzbot.

-----
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=f69bfae0a4eb29976e44
[2] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=f775be4458668f7d220e