CVE-2023-53809

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

l2tp: Avoid possible recursive deadlock in l2tp_tunnel_register()

When a file descriptor of pppol2tp socket is passed as file descriptor
of UDP socket, a recursive deadlock occurs in l2tp_tunnel_register().
This situation is reproduced by the following program:

int main(void)
{
	int sock;
	struct sockaddr_pppol2tp addr;

	sock = socket(AF_PPPOX, SOCK_DGRAM, PX_PROTO_OL2TP);
	if (sock < 0) {
		perror("socket");
		return 1;
	}

	addr.sa_family = AF_PPPOX;
	addr.sa_protocol = PX_PROTO_OL2TP;
	addr.pppol2tp.pid = 0;
	addr.pppol2tp.fd = sock;
	addr.pppol2tp.addr.sin_family = PF_INET;
	addr.pppol2tp.addr.sin_port = htons(0);
	addr.pppol2tp.addr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr("192.168.0.1");
	addr.pppol2tp.s_tunnel = 1;
	addr.pppol2tp.s_session = 0;
	addr.pppol2tp.d_tunnel = 0;
	addr.pppol2tp.d_session = 0;

	if (connect(sock, (const struct sockaddr *)&addr, sizeof(addr)) < 0) {
		perror("connect");
		return 1;
	}

	return 0;
}

This program causes the following lockdep warning:

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.2.0-rc5-00205-gc96618275234 #56 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 repro/8607 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff8880213c8130 (sk_lock-AF_PPPOX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: l2tp_tunnel_register+0x2b7/0x11c0

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff8880213c8130 (sk_lock-AF_PPPOX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: pppol2tp_connect+0xa82/0x1a30

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(sk_lock-AF_PPPOX);
   lock(sk_lock-AF_PPPOX);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by repro/8607:
  #0: ffff8880213c8130 (sk_lock-AF_PPPOX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: pppol2tp_connect+0xa82/0x1a30

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 0 PID: 8607 Comm: repro Not tainted 6.2.0-rc5-00205-gc96618275234 #56
 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.1-2.fc37 04/01/2014
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x100/0x178
  __lock_acquire.cold+0x119/0x3b9
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x410/0x410
  lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x610
  ? l2tp_tunnel_register+0x2b7/0x11c0
  ? lock_downgrade+0x710/0x710
  ? __fget_files+0x283/0x3e0
  lock_sock_nested+0x3a/0xf0
  ? l2tp_tunnel_register+0x2b7/0x11c0
  l2tp_tunnel_register+0x2b7/0x11c0
  ? sprintf+0xc4/0x100
  ? l2tp_tunnel_del_work+0x6b0/0x6b0
  ? debug_object_deactivate+0x320/0x320
  ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x16d/0x7a0
  ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x16d/0x7a0
  ? l2tp_tunnel_create+0x2bf/0x4b0
  ? l2tp_tunnel_create+0x3c6/0x4b0
  pppol2tp_connect+0x14e1/0x1a30
  ? pppol2tp_put_sk+0xd0/0xd0
  ? aa_sk_perm+0x2b7/0xa80
  ? aa_af_perm+0x260/0x260
  ? bpf_lsm_socket_connect+0x9/0x10
  ? pppol2tp_put_sk+0xd0/0xd0
  __sys_connect_file+0x14f/0x190
  __sys_connect+0x133/0x160
  ? __sys_connect_file+0x190/0x190
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x7d/0x100
  ? ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64+0x1b7/0x200
  ? ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64+0x147/0x200
  ? __audit_syscall_entry+0x396/0x500
  __x64_sys_connect+0x72/0xb0
  do_syscall_64+0x38/0xb0
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

This patch fixes the issue by getting/creating the tunnel before
locking the pppol2tp socket.