| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:14:43 -0400
From: "David Rivshin (Allworx)" <drivshin.allworx@...il.com>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Andrew Goodbody <andrew.goodbody@...brionix.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
<tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] drivers: net: cpsw: Prevent NUll pointer
dereference with two PHYs
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:44:41 +0300
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
> On 04/19/2016 06:01 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:41:07 +0300
> > Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 04/19/2016 04:56 PM, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
> >>> Adding a 2nd PHY to cpsw results in a NULL pointer dereference
> >>> as below. Fix by maintaining a reference to each PHY node in slave
> >>> struct instead of a single reference in the priv struct which was
> >>> overwritten by the 2nd PHY.
> >>
> >> David, Is it possible to drop prev version of this patch from linux-next
> >> - it breaks boot on many TI boards with -next.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [ 17.870933] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000180
> >>> [ 17.879557] pgd = dc8bc000
> >>> [ 17.882514] [00000180] *pgd=9c882831, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
> >>> [ 17.889213] Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] ARM
> >>> [ 17.893838] Modules linked in:
> >>> [ 17.897102] CPU: 0 PID: 1657 Comm: connmand Not tainted 4.5.0-ge463dfb-dirty #11
> >>> [ 17.904947] Hardware name: Cambrionix whippet
> >>> [ 17.909576] task: dc859240 ti: dc968000 task.ti: dc968000
> >>> [ 17.915339] PC is at phy_attached_print+0x18/0x8c
> >>> [ 17.920339] LR is at phy_attached_info+0x14/0x18
> >>> [ 17.925247] pc : [<c042baec>] lr : [<c042bb74>] psr: 600f0113
> >>> [ 17.925247] sp : dc969cf8 ip : dc969d28 fp : dc969d18
> >>> [ 17.937425] r10: dda7a400 r9 : 00000000 r8 : 00000000
> >>> [ 17.942971] r7 : 00000001 r6 : ddb00480 r5 : ddb8cb34 r4 : 00000000
> >>> [ 17.949898] r3 : c0954cc0 r2 : c09562b0 r1 : 00000000 r0 : 00000000
> >>> [ 17.956829] Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment none
> >>> [ 17.964401] Control: 10c5387d Table: 9c8bc019 DAC: 00000051
> >>> [ 17.970500] Process connmand (pid: 1657, stack limit = 0xdc968210)
> >>> [ 17.977059] Stack: (0xdc969cf8 to 0xdc96a000)
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> [ 18.323956] [<c05e4cb8>] (inet_ioctl) from [<c055f5ac>] (sock_ioctl+0x15c/0x2d8)
> >>> [ 18.331829] [<c055f450>] (sock_ioctl) from [<c010b388>] (do_vfs_ioctl+0x98/0x8d0)
> >>> [ 18.339765] r7:00008914 r6:dc8ab4c0 r5:dd257ae0 r4:beaeda20
> >>> [ 18.345822] [<c010b2f0>] (do_vfs_ioctl) from [<c010bc34>] (SyS_ioctl+0x74/0x84)
> >>> [ 18.353573] r10:00000000 r9:00000011 r8:beaeda20 r7:00008914 r6:dc8ab4c0 r5:dc8ab4c0
> >>> [ 18.361924] r4:00000000
> >>> [ 18.364653] [<c010bbc0>] (SyS_ioctl) from [<c00163e0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
> >>> [ 18.372682] r9:dc968000 r8:c00165e8 r7:00000036 r6:00000002 r5:00000011 r4:00000000
> >>> [ 18.380960] Code: e92dd810 e24cb010 e24dd010 e59b4004 (e5902180)
> >>> [ 18.387580] ---[ end trace c80529466223f3f3 ]---
> >>
> >> ^ Could you make it shorter and drop timestamps, pls?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Goodbody <andrew.goodbody@...brionix.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> v2 - Move allocation of memory for priv->slaves to inside cpsw_probe_dt so it
> >>> has data->slaves initialised first which is needed to calculate size
> >>>
> >>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> >>> index 42fdfd4..e62909c 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
> >>> @@ -349,6 +349,7 @@ struct cpsw_slave {
> >>> struct cpsw_slave_data *data;
> >>> struct phy_device *phy;
> >>> struct net_device *ndev;
> >>> + struct device_node *phy_node;
> >>> u32 port_vlan;
> >>> u32 open_stat;
> >>> };
> >>> @@ -367,7 +368,6 @@ struct cpsw_priv {
> >>> spinlock_t lock;
> >>> struct platform_device *pdev;
> >>> struct net_device *ndev;
> >>> - struct device_node *phy_node;
> >>> struct napi_struct napi_rx;
> >>> struct napi_struct napi_tx;
> >>> struct device *dev;
> >>> @@ -1148,8 +1148,8 @@ static void cpsw_slave_open(struct cpsw_slave *slave, struct cpsw_priv *priv)
> >>> cpsw_ale_add_mcast(priv->ale, priv->ndev->broadcast,
> >>> 1 << slave_port, 0, 0, ALE_MCAST_FWD_2);
> >>>
> >>> - if (priv->phy_node)
> >>> - slave->phy = of_phy_connect(priv->ndev, priv->phy_node,
> >>> + if (slave->phy_node)
> >>> + slave->phy = of_phy_connect(priv->ndev, slave->phy_node,
> >>> &cpsw_adjust_link, 0, slave->data->phy_if);
> >>> else
> >>> slave->phy = phy_connect(priv->ndev, slave->data->phy_id,
> >>> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
> >>> struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >>> struct device_node *slave_node;
> >>> struct cpsw_platform_data *data = &priv->data;
> >>> - int i = 0, ret;
> >>> + int i, ret;
> >>> u32 prop;
> >>>
> >>> if (!node)
> >>> @@ -1958,6 +1958,14 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
> >>> }
> >>> data->slaves = prop;
> >>>
> >>> + priv->slaves = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> >>> + sizeof(struct cpsw_slave) * data->slaves,
> >>> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!priv->slaves)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < data->slaves; i++)
> >>> + priv->slaves[i].slave_num = i;
> >>> +
> >>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "active_slave", &prop)) {
> >>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Missing active_slave property in the DT.\n");
> >>> return -EINVAL;
> >>> @@ -2023,6 +2031,7 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
> >>> if (ret)
> >>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Doesn't have any child node\n");
> >>>
> >>> + i = 0;
> >>> for_each_child_of_node(node, slave_node) {
> >>> struct cpsw_slave_data *slave_data = data->slave_data + i;
> >>> const void *mac_addr = NULL;
> >>> @@ -2033,7 +2042,8 @@ static int cpsw_probe_dt(struct cpsw_priv *priv,
> >>> if (strcmp(slave_node->name, "slave"))
> >>> continue;
> >>>
> >>> - priv->phy_node = of_parse_phandle(slave_node, "phy-handle", 0);
> >>> + priv->slaves[i].phy_node =
> >>> + of_parse_phandle(slave_node, "phy-handle", 0);
> >>
> >> i++?
> >>
> >> Ideally, the simplest way is to save phy_node in slave_data, but ...
> >> (see comment below).
> >
> > FYI, I have a patch [1] that does exactly that in my queue. Sorry
> > I've been busy and haven't had a chance to rebase/retest/resubmit
> > since Nicolas gave his Tested-By (and I missed Andrew's original
> > patch). I can probably steal some time to resurrect that quickly
> > if it's preferred, just let me know.
> >
> > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg357772.html
>
> Ah Ok. There are no user of cpsw_platform_data outside of net/ethernet/ti/,
> so yes, looks like your patch 1 does exactly what's needed.
Given that the v1 of Andrew's patch is already in Dave's net tree, and
would obviously have many conflicts with mine, how should I proceed?
Since you already requested Dave revert that patch, should I just wait
for that to happen and then resubmit my series?
Dave, Does that sound good to you?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> parp = of_get_property(slave_node, "phy_id", &lenp);
> >>> if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(slave_node)) {
> >>> struct device_node *phy_node;
> >>> @@ -2292,16 +2302,6 @@ static int cpsw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>
> >>> memcpy(ndev->dev_addr, priv->mac_addr, ETH_ALEN);
> >>>
> >>> - priv->slaves = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> >>> - sizeof(struct cpsw_slave) * data->slaves,
> >>> - GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> - if (!priv->slaves) {
> >>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>> - goto clean_runtime_disable_ret;
> >>> - }
> >> I don't think you can move this out from here - it will break legacy boot :(
> >>
> >>
> >>> - for (i = 0; i < data->slaves; i++)
> >>> - priv->slaves[i].slave_num = i;
> >>
> >> Personally, I see only one safe way to do it without big rework -
> >> do second pass of DT parsing here to fill phy_node field.
> >>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists