linux-kernel - FW: RE: Re: Subject: [PATCH v3] USB:Core: BugFix: Proper handling of Race Condition when two USB class drivers try to call init_usb

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:12:04 +0000
From:   Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...sung.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        AMAN DEEP <aman.deep@...sung.com>,
        HEMANSHU SRIVASTAVA <hemanshu.s@...sung.com>
Subject: FW: RE: Re: Subject: [PATCH v3] USB:Core: BugFix: Proper handling of
 Race Condition when two USB class drivers try to call init_usb_class
 simultaneously


> On Mon, 22 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>> 
>>> Alan, as per my understanding I have shifted the lock from
>>> release_usb_class() to destroy_usb_class() in patch v3. 
>>> If it is not right, please explain in detail which race condition
>>> I have missed and also share your suggestions.
>>> 
>> 
>> Have you considered what would happen if destroy_usb_class() ran, but 
>> some other CPU was still holding a reference to usb_class?  And what if 
>> the last reference gets dropped later on, while init_usb_class() is 
>> running?
> 
> Access of usb_class->kref is only from either init_usb_class()
> or destroy_usb_class(), and both these functions are now protected
> with Mutex Locking in patch v3, so there is no chance of race condition
> as per above scenarios.
> 
>> Maybe that's not possible here, but it is possible in general for 
>> refcounted objects.  So yes, this code is probably okay, but it isn't 
>> good form.
> 
> As per my understanding, I found to be one of the best possible solution
> for this problem and this solutiuon don't have any side effect.

Alan, I had shared modified Patch v3 as per your inputs to prevent
the race condition during simultaneously calling of init_usb_class().
If you think there is scope to improve the patch, please share your inputs.

thanks,
ajay kaher


Signed-off-by: Ajay Kaher

---

 drivers/usb/core/file.c |    6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/file.c b/drivers/usb/core/file.c
index 822ced9..a12d184 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/core/file.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/core/file.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
 #define MAX_USB_MINORS 256
 static const struct file_operations *usb_minors[MAX_USB_MINORS];
 static DECLARE_RWSEM(minor_rwsem);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(init_usb_class_mutex);

 static int usb_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 {
@@ -109,8 +110,10 @@ static void release_usb_class(struct kref *kref)

 static void destroy_usb_class(void)
 {
+       mutex_lock(&init_usb_class_mutex);
        if (usb_class)
                kref_put(&usb_class->kref, release_usb_class);
+       mutex_unlock(&init_usb_class_mutex);
 }

 int usb_major_init(void)
@@ -171,7 +174,10 @@ int usb_register_dev(struct usb_interface *intf,
        if (intf->minor >= 0)
                return -EADDRINUSE;

+       mutex_lock(&init_usb_class_mutex);
        retval = init_usb_class();
+       mutex_unlock(&init_usb_class_mutex);
+
        if (retval)
                return retval;