linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] uio: Fix uio driver to refcount device

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: <550AEED1.2030202@brocade.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:44:17 +0000
From:	Brian Russell <brian.russell@...cade.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Brian Russell <brussell@...cade.com>
CC:	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] uio: Fix uio driver to refcount device



On 19/03/15 15:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 02:49:21PM +0000, Brian Russell wrote:
>> On 19/03/15 14:23, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 02:11:19PM +0000, Brian Russell wrote:
>>>>  	if (info->irq && (info->irq != UIO_IRQ_CUSTOM)) {
>>>> -		ret = devm_request_irq(idev->dev, info->irq, uio_interrupt,
>>>> +		ret = request_irq(info->irq, uio_interrupt,
>>>>  				  info->irq_flags, info->name, idev);
>>>
>>> Why move this away from the device lifecycle?
>>>
>>
>> I ran into a problem here: after device unregister the parent module (in my case igb_uio in DPDK) can call pci_disable_msi. From the PCI MSI how to:
>>
>> "Before calling this function, a device driver must always call free_irq()
>> on any interrupt for which it previously called request_irq().
>> Failure to do so results in a BUG_ON(), leaving the device with
>> MSI enabled and thus leaking its vector."
>>
>> So I need the free_irq, but the device may still have open fds and therefore be around a bit longer waiting for them to be released.
> 
> Note, please wrap your email lines...
> 
> Anyway, ok, that makes sense.  But put in a big comment in here about
> this so that someone doesn't try to convert it to devm_* in the future.
> 
> Can you do this in a separate patch first as well?  Burrying it in a
> pointer conversion patch isn't good.
> 

Ok, will do. As you've probably guessed, this is my first attempt at
patch submission, your patience is appreciated.

>>>>  err_device_create:
>>>>  	uio_free_minor(idev);
>>>>  	return ret;
>>>> @@ -871,8 +892,10 @@ void uio_unregister_device(struct uio_info *info)
>>>>  
>>>>  	uio_dev_del_attributes(idev);
>>>>  
>>>> -	device_destroy(&uio_class, MKDEV(uio_major, idev->minor));
>>>> +	device_unregister(&idev->dev);
>>>> +	free_irq(idev->info->irq, idev);
>>>>  
>>>> +	idev->info = NULL;
>>>
>>> Why?  If this was the last reference count, isn't idev now gone?  You
>>> shouldn't be referencing it anymore.
>>>
>>
>> No, the device can be unregistered here but still have outstanding refcount because of open fds. The count can get to zero in the release function, so idev could still be around after this but the calling module could free info.
> 
> Yes, but if it was the last reference, idev is now a stale pointer and
> you just derefrenced it.  Twice.  :(
> 
> Once you do a put, and don't have a reference on the pointer, you can't
> touch that pointer again.
> 

Ah yes, good point! Need to move those 2 lines up.

Thanks,

Brian

> 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/