Re: [PATCH net v10 07/14] rxrpc: Fix packet encryption error handling
From: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org
Date: 2026-09-15 22:57:42
Also in:
lkml
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: Critical: 0 · High: 1 · Medium: 0 · Low: 1 (2) - [High] rxrpc_send_data() leaks call->user_mutex on the newly added terminal crypto-error path. - [Low] Return-value documentation vs behaviour in rxrpc_send_data(): the reworked comment (net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:492-521) adds item '(3) If an… Pre-existing issues: - [Low] Documentation/networking/rxrpc.rst (in the 'Send data through a call' section that this patch edits) declares the callback type as… - [Low] The paragraph reworded by this patch in Documentation/networking/rxrpc.rst:881-884 states 'msg must not… -- rxrpc: Fix packet encryption error handling The patch reworks the ->secure_packet() failure handling in rxrpc_send_data() so that -ENOMEM is treated as retryable (rewinding the last packet and the iterator), while any other error marks the call with a new RXRPC_CALL_TX_ERROR flag so subsequent sendmsg() attempts return -EIO. The documentation and return-value comment are updated to match. Closes: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260702144919.172295-1-dhowells%40redhat.com
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/rxrpc.rst b/Documentation/networking/rxrpc.rst index 01ad12fdf3058..9b7eeae841485 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/rxrpc.rst +++ b/Documentation/networking/rxrpc.rst@@ -878,8 +878,10 @@ The kernel interface functions are as follows: exclusively to in-kernel virtual addresses. msg.msg_flags may be given MSG_MORE if there will be subsequent data sends for this call. - The msg must not specify a destination address, control data or any flags - other than MSG_MORE. + msg must not specify a destination address, control data or any flags + other than MSG_MORE. The last-packet flag will only be set on the + outgoing packet if MSG_MORE is not set and all the data in the iterator is + buffered.
[Severity: Low] This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but while this paragraph is being reworded: is the "any flags other than MSG_MORE" restriction still accurate? The only in-tree caller, afs_make_call() in fs/afs/rxrpc.c, does: msg.msg_flags = MSG_WAITALL | (call->write_iter ? MSG_MORE : 0); and rxrpc_send_data() itself looks at MSG_WAITALL on the wait-for-space path: ret = rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window(rx, call, &timeo, msg->msg_flags & MSG_WAITALL); Should MSG_WAITALL be mentioned as permitted here? [Severity: Low] This is a pre-existing documentation issue rather than something this patch introduces, but it is in the same "Send data through a call" block being edited. The documented callback prototype is: typedef void (*rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t)(struct sock *sk, unsigned long user_call_ID, struct sk_buff *skb); whereas include/net/af_rxrpc.h has: typedef void (*rxrpc_notify_end_tx_t)(struct sock *, struct rxrpc_call *, unsigned long); and rxrpc_notify_end_tx() in net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c invokes it as notify_end_tx(&rx->sk, call, call->user_call_ID). Could the documented prototype be updated while this section is being touched? [ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c b/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c index 1012d2d337a55..ed7ff32da1847 100644 --- a/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c
[ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -352,6 +353,13 @@ static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, ret = -EPROTO; goto out_unlock; } + if (unlikely(test_bit(RXRPC_CALL_TX_ERROR, &call->flags))) { + trace_rxrpc_abort(call->debug_id, rxrpc_sendmsg_tx_error, + call->cid, call->call_id, call->rx_consumed, + 0, -EIO); + ret = -EIO; + goto out_unlock; + } ret = -EPIPE; if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)
[ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -440,14 +449,29 @@ static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, /* add the packet to the send queue if it's now full */ if (!txb->space || (len == 0 && !more)) { + /* Do any required crypto. If this fails, it could + * have corrupted the txbuf content with a partial + * encrypt. Assume that ENOMEM is retryable, but + * everything else is terminal. + */ + ret = call->security->secure_packet(call, txb); + if (ret < 0) { + /* Assume that ENOMEM here means that the + * encryption hasn't happened yet. The data is + * aligned to avoid the need for slow buffering + * in the crypto walk. + */ + if (ret == -ENOMEM) + goto maybe_error_rewind; + set_bit(RXRPC_CALL_TX_ERROR, &call->flags); + goto out;
^^^^
[Severity: High]
Should this be goto out_unlock? The out: label sits after the unlock in
rxrpc_send_data():
ret = copied;
out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex);
out:
The previous code used "goto out_unlock" here, and the function is annotated
__releases(&call->user_mutex). Does this new path return with
call->user_mutex still held?
For the userspace path, rxrpc_do_sendmsg() does:
case RXRPC_CMD_SEND_DATA:
ret = rxrpc_send_data(rx, call, msg, len, NULL);
goto error_put;
which skips its own mutex_unlock(&call->user_mutex), so sendmsg() would
return to userspace owning the mutex, and any later sendmsg()/recvmsg() on
that call would block on it.
For in-kernel senders, rxrpc_kernel_send_data() takes the mutex on each
iteration and breaks out on ret < 0 without unlocking:
for (;;) {
mutex_lock(&call->user_mutex);
ret = rxrpc_send_data(rx, call, msg, ...);
if (ret < 0)
break;
and fs/afs then goes to error_do_abort, which calls
rxrpc_kernel_abort_call() -> mutex_lock(&call->user_mutex) in the same
task. Can that self-deadlock?
The error is reachable from the security layers without -ENOMEM being
involved, e.g. rxkad_secure_packet():
ret = key_validate(call->conn->key);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
which can return -EKEYEXPIRED/-EKEYREVOKED, and rxgk_secure_packet():
gk = rxgk_get_key(call->conn, NULL);
if (IS_ERR(gk))
return PTR_ERR(gk) == -ESTALE ? -EKEYREJECTED : PTR_ERR(gk);
plus -EPERM and crypto errors.
One further consequence: since the sendmsg that sets RXRPC_CALL_TX_ERROR
never drops call->user_mutex, does the new -EIO gate at the reload: label
ever become reachable for that call?
This same "goto out" is still present at the tip of the series
(619b79dff7d2).
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ } + if (len == 0 && !more) txb->flags |= RXRPC_LAST_PACKET; - - ret = call->security->secure_packet(call, txb); - if (ret < 0) - goto out_unlock; rxrpc_queue_packet(rx, call, txb, notify_end_tx); call->tx_pending = NULL; + rewind_by = 0; /* At this point, if that was the last packet, it may * have been transmitted and the reply (client call) or@@ -474,19 +498,22 @@ static int rxrpc_send_data(struct rxrpc_sock *rx, * * (2) If another sendmsg() has already queued the last packet: -EPROTO. * - * (3) If the send side of the socket is shut down, -EPIPE. + * (3) If an error caused it to be impossible to continue with the + * call: -EIO.
[Severity: Low] Does item (3) describe what the failing sendmsg() actually returns? The sendmsg() in which ->secure_packet() fails returns the raw error from the security layer (-EKEYEXPIRED, -EKEYREVOKED, -EKEYREJECTED, -EPERM, or a crypto errno), since the new terminal path leaves ret untouched: set_bit(RXRPC_CALL_TX_ERROR, &call->flags); goto out; -EIO only appears on a subsequent sendmsg() via the new RXRPC_CALL_TX_ERROR test at the reload: label. That path also bypasses maybe_error:, so when copied > 0 the error is returned rather than the byte count, which is the opposite of the stated preference of item (7) over item (8). Could the comment say that -EIO is returned on subsequent sendmsg() calls, and that the first failure reports the security layer's error even if data was consumed from msg_iter?
+ * + * (4) If the send side of the socket is shut down, -EPIPE. * - * (4) If the call is in the wrong state to transmit: -EPROTO. + * (5) If the call is in the wrong state to transmit: -EPROTO. * - * (5) If the call has terminated early, likely due to an external + * (6) If the call has terminated early, likely due to an external * event such as being remotely aborted: -ESHUTDOWN. * - * (6) If some data has been copied by this call: the amount copied + * (7) If some data has been copied by this call: the amount copied * (which will be greater than zero). * - * (7) Any other error. + * (8) Any other error. * - * For (2)-(5), there's no point in continuing with the sendmsg(). The + * For (2)-(6), there's no point in continuing with the sendmsg(). The * app should abort the call (just in case the error came from * somewhere else) and then use recvmsg() to collect the final result * of the call.
[ ... ] -- Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260914151340.3227501-1-dhowells%40redhat.com