thunderbolt: Fix NULL dereference in tb_remove_work()grafted

There is a slight race between tb_remove_work() and tb_domain_remove()
which leads to dereferencing a NULL tb->root_switch pointer inside
tb_free_unplugged_xdomains():

        Thread A                            Thread B

  tb_remove_work()
                                    tb_domain_remove()
                                      mutex_lock(&tb->lock)
                                      tb_stop()
                                        /* doesn't cancel a running callback */
                                        cancel_delayed_work(&tcm->remove_work)
                                        ...
                                        tb_switch_remove(tb->root_switch)
                                        tb->root_switch = NULL
                                      mutex_unlock(&tb->lock)
    mutex_lock(&tb->lock)
    ...
    /* without checking ->root_switch */
    tb_free_unplugged_xdomains(tb->root_switch)
    mutex_unlock(&tb->lock)

Commit a8937f35cf39 ("thunderbolt: Remove XDomain from the bus without
holding tb->lock") doesn't seem right to move tb_free_unplugged_xdomains()
out of the &tb->lock section and the check for tb->root_switch, in
particular.  It states:

  For this reason separate removing the XDomain from the topology data
  structures (where we need the lock) from unregistering the device from
  the bus (where remove callbacks of the drivers are being called).

tb_free_unplugged_xdomains() belongs to the former group of functions
requiring the lock.  And it also calls tb_xdomain_remove() which should
only be called with &tb->lock held.

Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
analysis tool.

Fixes: a8937f35cf39 ("thunderbolt: Remove XDomain from the bus without holding tb->lock")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

1 files changed, 46 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst b/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..afe9d7b48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/networking/ipsec.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=====
+IPsec
+=====
+
+
+Here documents known IPsec corner cases which need to be keep in mind when
+deploy various IPsec configuration in real world production environment.
+
+1. IPcomp:
+	   Small IP packet won't get compressed at sender, and failed on
+	   policy check on receiver.
+
+Quote from RFC3173::
+
+  2.2. Non-Expansion Policy
+
+   If the total size of a compressed payload and the IPComp header, as
+   defined in section 3, is not smaller than the size of the original
+   payload, the IP datagram MUST be sent in the original non-compressed
+   form.  To clarify: If an IP datagram is sent non-compressed, no
+
+   IPComp header is added to the datagram.  This policy ensures saving
+   the decompression processing cycles and avoiding incurring IP
+   datagram fragmentation when the expanded datagram is larger than the
+   MTU.
+
+   Small IP datagrams are likely to expand as a result of compression.
+   Therefore, a numeric threshold should be applied before compression,
+   where IP datagrams of size smaller than the threshold are sent in the
+   original form without attempting compression.  The numeric threshold
+   is implementation dependent.
+
+Current IPComp implementation is indeed by the book, while as in practice
+when sending non-compressed packet to the peer (whether or not packet len
+is smaller than the threshold or the compressed len is larger than original
+packet len), the packet is dropped when checking the policy as this packet
+matches the selector but not coming from any XFRM layer, i.e., with no
+security path. Such naked packet will not eventually make it to upper layer.
+The result is much more wired to the user when ping peer with different
+payload length.
+
+One workaround is try to set "level use" for each policy if user observed
+above scenario. The consequence of doing so is small packet(uncompressed)
+will skip policy checking on receiver side.