Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 23:09:45 +0900
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	"Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 
	<gta04-owner@...delico.com>
Subject: Re: Bug: power supply - NULL pointer dereference in bq27x00 driver

2015-05-18 22:30 GMT+09:00 Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com>:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> Am 18.05.2015 um 14:32 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>:
>
>> 2015-05-18 18:40 GMT+09:00 Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com>:
>>> Hi,
>>> we tried to upgrade from 4.0 to 4.1-rc3 kernel and ran into a NULL pointer problem within the bq27x00 driver.
>>>
>>> It appears to be introduced by your patch 297d716f6260cc9421d971b124ca196b957ee458
>>>
>>> The problem appears to be that bq27x00_powersupply_init() calls power_supply_register_no_ws() and
>>> sets di->bat *after* return. The old code did pass an uninitialized struct pointer.
>>>
>>> Now for reasons I don’t understand, the power_supply_register_no_ws() appears to call
>>> uevent related stuff which in turn calls bq27x00_battery_get_property() before di->bat
>>> is properly initialized.
>>>
>>> I have checked with printk in bq27x00_battery_get_property() that di>bat == NULL in this case and
>>> right before we see the segfault.
>>>
>>> The old code simply did pass a zeroed struct power_supply and perhaps initialized its components
>>> during registration.
>>>
>>> Returning some -EINVAL if di->bat == NULL would likely solve the NULL pointer dereference but
>>> I don’t know what it does to the uevent and if it restores previous operation.
>>>
>>> It could have been that it was for good purpose that power_supply_register_no_ws() did not return
>>> by value, but by reference to the di->bat struct:
>>>
>>> -       ret = power_supply_register_no_ws(di->dev, &di->bat, NULL);
>>> +       di->bat = power_supply_register_no_ws(di->dev, psy_desc, &psy_cfg);
>>>
>>> So that code called within the context of power_supply_register_no_ws() could already
>>> refer to initialized di->bat.
>>
>> Indeed this issue was not present in previous design however I think
>> the architecture was still error-prone. Starting from driver's probe:
>> - some_driver_probe()
>>   - power_supply_register(&psy)
>>     - device_add()
>>       - kobject_uevent() - notify userspace
>>        - power_supply_uevent()
>>          - power_supply_show_property()
>>            - power_supply_get_property()
>>              - some_driver_get_property()
>>
>> So before probe() ends the power supply core calls driver's
>> get_property(). In that time the driver internal structures may not be
>> ready yet, because the probe did not end.
>
> Yes, that is indeed a problem. Maybe it did work with the bq27x00 driver
> earlier because the call to power_supply_register(&psy) was the last
> activity.

Right, for most of the drivers it is the last part of probe.

>
>> The get_property() could
>> access some registers or other core functions which will be ready
>> after power_supply_register() call. For example the
>> bq27x00_battery_get_property() accesses delayed work which could be
>> (by mistake) not yet initialized.
>>
>> I looked at other dev_uevent implementations and almost all of them do
>> not call back the driver.
>>
>> Of course this does not change that I introduced the issue and I feel
>> bad about it.
>> I got some ideas for resolving it:
>> 1. Fix bq27x00_battery and maybe others so they won't access the 'psy'
>> member of its state container. This does not solve the issue from
>> architectural point of view - still some uninitialised data may be
>> accessed because probe() is in progress. However this would be the
>> fastest and the least intrusive.
>
> The problem might be that it fundamentally changes the driver code
> architecture. For example one call using di->bat is in
>
> bq27x00_battery_status() {
> …
>                 else if (power_supply_am_i_supplied(di->bat))
>                         status = POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_NOT_CHARGING;
> …
> }
>
>>
>> 2. Remove calls to get_property() (and other functions provided by
>> driver) from power_supply_uevent(). Unfortunately this may break
>> userspace which expects that some data will be present in uevent.
>>
>> 3. Change the API to the previous convention, which you pointed as a remedy:
>> ret = power_supply_register_no_ws(di->dev, &di->bat, psy_desc, &psy_cfg);
>> This also won't solve the issue from 1. that uevent will be called
>> before probe ends.
>
> Well, we could require that power_supply_register_no_ws() is the last
> activity to be done in any_driver_probe().

Some drivers (like drivers/power/lp8727_charger.c) register multiple
power supplies and there can be only one last call. What is even
important in this lp8727 case, is that it registers:
 - a battery,
 - two chargers which supply this battery.

So when power supplies are registered, the delayed work is executed
for each supplied battery. Hopefully the the battery is registered as
last... but I am not quite sure that this is still safe.

>> 4. Block the power_supply_uevent() from calling the get_property()
>> functions until device_add() finishes. This would solve this issue but
>> first uevent messages (from adding device) won't contain all of device
>> data (just like in solution no 2.) and this won't solve other race -
>> someone may call sysfs show() on created device nodes and thus access
>> the get_property() before probe finishes.
>
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> 5. is it possible to delay the call to kobject_uevent() after some_driver_probe()
> is finished? E.g. by registering a one-shot delayed work?
>
> There seems to be a shared workqueue (mentioned e.g. in
> <http://www.makelinux.net/ldd3/chp-7-sect-6>)
> but that is an area of the kernel I am not familiar with.

Unfortunately there is no guarantee that delayed work will be executed
after probe ends. It should be but... who knows when it be scheduled?

Anyway thanks for reporting the issue and ideas.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists