[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1786876.W1t3Uy8JAQ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:37:01 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: "heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com" <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com" <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"John.Youn@...opsys.com" <John.Youn@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] device property: fix for a case of use-after-free
On Monday, February 22, 2016 05:04:04 PM Shevchenko, Andriy wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:40 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 16:50 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > In device_remove_property_set(), if the primary fwnode is
> > > of type "pset", it has to be set pointing to NULL before
> > > calling set_secondary_fwnode(). Otherwise
> > > set_secondary_fwnode() will attempt to set the
> > > fwnode->secondary member after the fwnode has been freed.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: John Youn <John.Youn@...opsys.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/property.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c
> > > index a163f2c..ddf2987 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> > > @@ -820,7 +820,9 @@ void device_remove_property_set(struct device
> > > *dev)
> > > * the pset. If there is no real firmware node (ACPI/DT)
> > > primary
> > > * will hold the pset.
> > > */
> > > - if (!is_pset_node(fwnode))
> > > + if (is_pset_node(fwnode))
> > > + dev->fwnode = NULL;
> > > + else
> > > fwnode = fwnode->secondary;
> > > if (!IS_ERR(fwnode) && is_pset_node(fwnode))
> > > pset_free_set(to_pset_node(fwnode));
> >
> >
> > What if we do the following
> >
> > --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> > @@ -818,9 +818,13 @@ void device_remove_property_set(struct device
> > *dev)
> > */
> > if (!is_pset_node(fwnode))
> > fwnode = fwnode->secondary;
> > +
> > + /* Set device fwnode to NULL before we free it */
> > + set_secondary_fwnode(dev, NULL);
> > +
> > + /* Free property set for the given device */
> > if (!IS_ERR(fwnode) && is_pset_node(fwnode))
> > pset_free_set(to_pset_node(fwnode));
> > - set_secondary_fwnode(dev, NULL);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_remove_property_set);
> >
> > ?
> >
>
> Just noticed that there is another potential bug is hidden, if we call
> this function on non-pset fwnode we will silently get fwnode set to
> NULL.
>
> Considering this, perhaps better solution is to convert last lines to
>
> if (!IS_ERR(fwnode) && is_pset_node(fwnode)) {
> set_secondary_fwnode(dev, NULL);
> pset_free_set(to_pset_node(fwnode));
> }
>
> I didn't check if we do serialize access to fwnode. It might be more
> bugs with access to it in racing manner.
The core doesn't serialize those.
If the callers need serialization, they should use some locking around
those calls.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists