Its not possible to call the kernel_(s|g)etsockopt functions here,
the address points to user memory:

General protection fault in user access. Non-canonical address?
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5352 at arch/x86/mm/extable.c:77 ex_handler_uaccess+0xba/0xe0 arch/x86/mm/extable.c:77
Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ...
[..]
Call Trace:
 fixup_exception+0x9d/0xcd arch/x86/mm/extable.c:178
 general_protection+0x2d/0x40 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:1202
 do_ip_getsockopt+0x1f6/0x1860 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:1323
 ip_getsockopt+0x87/0x1c0 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:1561
 tcp_getsockopt net/ipv4/tcp.c:3691 [inline]
 tcp_getsockopt+0x8c/0xd0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:3685
 kernel_getsockopt+0x121/0x1f0 net/socket.c:3736
 mptcp_getsockopt+0x69/0x90 net/mptcp/protocol.c:830
 __sys_getsockopt+0x13a/0x220 net/socket.c:2175

We can call tcp_get/setsockopt functions instead.  Doing so fixes
crashing, but still leaves rtnl related lockdep splat:

     WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
     5.5.0-rc6 #2 Not tainted
     ------------------------------------------------------
     syz-executor.0/16334 is trying to acquire lock:
     ffffffff84f7a080 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}, at: do_ip_setsockopt.isra.0+0x277/0x3820 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:644
     but task is already holding lock:
     ffff888116503b90 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1516 [inline]
     ffff888116503b90 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}, at: mptcp_setsockopt+0x28/0x90 net/mptcp/protocol.c:1284

     which lock already depends on the new lock.
     the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

     -> #1 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}:
            lock_sock_nested+0xca/0x120 net/core/sock.c:2944
            lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1516 [inline]
            do_ip_setsockopt.isra.0+0x281/0x3820 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:645
            ip_setsockopt+0x44/0xf0 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:1248
            udp_setsockopt+0x5d/0xa0 net/ipv4/udp.c:2639
            __sys_setsockopt+0x152/0x240 net/socket.c:2130
            __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2146 [inline]
            __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2143 [inline]
            __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xba/0x150 net/socket.c:2143
            do_syscall_64+0xbd/0x5b0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:294
            entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe

     -> #0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}:
            check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2475 [inline]
            check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2580 [inline]
            validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2970 [inline]
            __lock_acquire+0x1fb2/0x4680 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3954
            lock_acquire+0x127/0x330 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4484
            __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:956 [inline]
            __mutex_lock+0x158/0x1340 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1103
            do_ip_setsockopt.isra.0+0x277/0x3820 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:644
            ip_setsockopt+0x44/0xf0 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c:1248
            tcp_setsockopt net/ipv4/tcp.c:3159 [inline]
            tcp_setsockopt+0x8c/0xd0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:3153
            kernel_setsockopt+0x121/0x1f0 net/socket.c:3767
            mptcp_setsockopt+0x69/0x90 net/mptcp/protocol.c:1288
            __sys_setsockopt+0x152/0x240 net/socket.c:2130
            __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2146 [inline]
            __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2143 [inline]
            __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xba/0x150 net/socket.c:2143
            do_syscall_64+0xbd/0x5b0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:294
            entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe

     other info that might help us debug this:

      Possible unsafe locking scenario:

            CPU0                    CPU1
            ----                    ----
       lock(sk_lock-AF_INET);
                                    lock(rtnl_mutex);
                                    lock(sk_lock-AF_INET);
       lock(rtnl_mutex);

The lockdep complaint is because we hold mptcp socket lock when calling
the sk_prot get/setsockopt handler, and those might need to acquire the
rtnl mutex.  Normally, order is:

rtnl_lock(sk) -> lock_sock

Whereas for mptcp the order is

lock_sock(mptcp_sk) rtnl_lock -> lock_sock(subflow_sk)

We can avoid this by releasing the mptcp socket lock early, but, as Paolo
points out, we need to get/put the subflow socket refcount before doing so
to avoid race with concurrent close().

Fixes: 717e79c8 ("mptcp: Add setsockopt()/getsockopt() socket operations")
Reported-by: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>