linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/15] Char: lp, protect LPGETSTATUS with port

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]

Message-Id: <201305071648.35039.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Tue, 7 May 2013 16:48:34 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	jirislaby@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"salina@...ibm.com" <salina@...ibm.com>, okir@...e.de,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] Char: lp, protect LPGETSTATUS with port_mutex

On Tuesday 07 May 2013, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> From: "salina@...ibm.com" <salina@...ibm.com>
> 
> The patch fixes a problem in the lp driver that can cause oopses as
> follows:
> process A:      calls lp_write, which in turn calls
>                 parport_ieee1284_write_compat, and that invokes
>                 parport_wait_peripheral
> process B:      meanwhile does an ioctl(LPGETSTATUS), which call
>                 lp_release_parport when done. This function will set
>                 physport->cad = NULL.
> process A:      parport_wait_peripheral tries to dereference
>                 physport->cad and dies
> 
> So, protect that code with the port_mutex in order to protect against
> simultaneous calls to lp_read/lp_write.
> 
> Similar protection is probably required for ioctl(LPRESET)...
> 
> This patch was done by IBM a while back and we (at suse) have that
> since at least 2004 in our repos. Let's make it upstream.

Hmm,  it seems the driver has changed a bit since 2004, at least when
I added the lp_mutex to lp_open()/lp_ioctl(). It's probably worth
taking a look at the bigger picture now, to combine lp_mutex with
lp_table[minor].port_mutex. I don't see any reason why we can't always
use the per-device mutex. The only shared variable is the lp_count 
number, and that is not protected under lp_mutex today, and presumably
not updated at run time either.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/