Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 3/5] bpf, sockmap: Fix af_unix iter deadlock

From: Jiayuan Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2026 14:04:09 +0800

On 3/6/26 7:30 AM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() may deadlock when lock_sock_fast() takes the fast
> path and the iter prog attempts to update a sockmap. Which ends up spinning
> at sock_map_update_elem()'s bh_lock_sock():
>
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> test_progs/1393 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
>         CPU0
>         ----
>    lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
>    lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
>
>   *** DEADLOCK ***
>
>   May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 4 locks held by test_progs/1393:
>   #0: ffff88814b59c790 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x59/0x10d0
>   #1: ffff88811ec25fd8 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
>   #2: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
>   #3: ffffffff85a6a7c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: bpf_iter_run_prog+0x51d/0xb00
>
> Call Trace:
>   dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80
>   print_deadlock_bug.cold+0xc0/0xce
>   __lock_acquire+0x130f/0x2590
>   lock_acquire+0x14e/0x2b0
>   _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40
>   sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
>   bpf_prog_2d0075e5d9b721cd_dump_unix+0x55/0x4f4
>   bpf_iter_run_prog+0x5b9/0xb00
>   bpf_iter_unix_seq_show+0x1f7/0x2e0
>   bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
>   vfs_read+0x171/0xb20
>   ksys_read+0xff/0x200
>   do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x3a0
>   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>
> Suggested-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <[email-masked]>
> Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email-masked]>
> Fixes: 2c860a43dd77 ("bpf: af_unix: Implement BPF iterator for UNIX domain socket.")
> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <[email-masked]>
> ---
>   net/unix/af_unix.c | 7 +++----
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> index 3756a93dc63a..3d2cfb4ecbcd 100644
> --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
> +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> @@ -3729,15 +3729,14 @@ static int bpf_iter_unix_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>   	struct bpf_prog *prog;
>   	struct sock *sk = v;
>   	uid_t uid;
> -	bool slow;
>   	int ret;
>   
>   	if (v == SEQ_START_TOKEN)
>   		return 0;
>   
> -	slow = lock_sock_fast(sk);
> +	lock_sock(sk);
>   
> -	if (unlikely(sk_unhashed(sk))) {
> +	if (unlikely(sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))) {
>   		ret = SEQ_SKIP;
>   		goto unlock;
>   	}

Switching to lock_sock() fixes the deadlock, but it does not provide mutual
exclusion with unix_release_sock(), which uses unix_state_lock() exclusively
and does not touch lock_sock() at all. So a dying socket can still reach the
BPF prog concurrently with unix_release_sock() running on another CPU.

Both SOCK_DEAD and the clearing of unix_peer(sk) happen under
unix_state_lock() in unix_release_sock(). Without taking unix_state_lock()
before the SOCK_DEAD check, there is a window:

iter unix_release_sock()
---  lock_sock(sk)
SOCK_DEAD == 0(check passes)
   unix_state_lock(sk)
                                                   unix_peer(sk) = NULL
   sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)
   unix_state_unlock(sk)
BPF prog runs
→ accesses unix_peer(sk) == NULL → crash

This was not raised in the v2 discussion.

The natural fix is to check SOCK_DEAD under unix_state_lock(). However,
holding unix_state_lock() throughout BPF prog execution would conflict with
patch 5: sock_map_sk_acquire_fast() also takes unix_state_lock() for AF_UNIX
sockets, resulting in a recursive spinlock deadlock.

Kuniyuki, Martin — what is the right approach here?

> @@ -3747,7 +3746,7 @@ static int bpf_iter_unix_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
>   	prog = bpf_iter_get_info(&meta, false);
>   	ret = unix_prog_seq_show(prog, &meta, v, uid);
>   unlock:
> -	unlock_sock_fast(sk, slow);
> +	release_sock(sk);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
>