linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] serial: pl011: Move uart_register

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: <20140214001436.GA16287@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:14:36 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, jslaby@...e.cz,
	ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] serial: pl011: Move uart_register_driver call to
 device probe

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:07:17AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:26:06PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:42:49PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > We went through this before, and I stated the paths, and no one disagreed
> > > with that.
> > > 
> > > It /is/ racy.
> > 
> > Ok, I just went and looked at the uart driver register path, and I don't
> > see the race (note, if there is one, it's there today, regardless of
> > this patch).
> 
> The race isn't the uart code, it's the driver model.
> 
> Consider what happens when this happens:
> 
> * Two pl011 devices get registered at the same time by two different
>   threads.

How?  What two different busses will see this same device?  The amba bus
code should prevent that from happening, right?  If not, there's bigger
problems in that bus code :)

That's where this problem should be fixed, if there is one, otherwise
this same issue would be there for any type of driver that calles into
the uart core, right?

> * Both devices have a lock taken on the _device_ itself before matching
>   against the driver.
> 
> * Both devices get matched to the same driver.
> 
> * Both devices are passed into the driver's probe function.
> 
> * Both check uart_reg.state, both call uart_register_driver() on that
>   at the same time, which results in two allocations inside
>   uart_register_driver(), one gets overwritten...
> 
> So, the /only/ thing which stops this happening is that the devices
> are generally available before the driver is registered, and driver
> registration results in devices being probed serially.  Moreover, both
> attempt to call tty_register_driver()... one succeeds, the other fails.
> 
> However, what about the userspace bind/unbind methods.  Yes, userspace
> can ask the driver core to unbind devices from a driver or bind - and
> again, there's no per-driver locking here.  So, if you can trigger two
> concurrent binds from userspace, you hit the same race as above.
> 
> So, if you want to accept these patches, go ahead, introduce races, but
> personally I'd recommend plugging these races.

The only way to solve this would be to do it in the bus, I don't see
anything here that makes it any "racier" than it currently is.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/