linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] firmware: correct test of wait_for_completion_interruptible

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACVXFVPzQQ+hmKrg39dOMam3WnAK5DmKMGMNrnBe79L6c+vaag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:25:07 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Mario Limonciello <mario_limonciello@...l.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, stuart_hayes@...l.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] firmware: correct test of wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout
 return

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Mario Limonciello
<mario_limonciello@...l.com> wrote:
> Before this commit both code paths (hotplug and not-hotplug as determined
> by FW_OPT_UEVENT)  would block on an interruptible completion, but the
> hotplugscenario also would wait until timeout and then abort.  The non
> hotplugscenario (which dell-rbu followed) would block indefinitely until
> interrupted.
>
> After this commit both scenarios block on an interruptible condition but
> the hotplug scenario follows the value of firmware_loading_timeout to end.
> This changed the situation for the non hotplug scenario to instead wait
> for MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET.  This should have the same result, but dell-rbu was
> failing with negative values returned from
> wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout after completion occurred.
>
> This shouldn't be possible, but it was happening because the return is a
> long but the value it was being saved to was an int.  When completion
> occurs quickly wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout returns how much
> time was left (which happens to be a very big number since the timeout was
> MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET) One test run of mine returned 4611686018427368747.
>
> Other parts of the kernel with this type of return don't have problems
> because they use smaller timeouts.
>
> So to fix this: change the test to not store the value to an int, but
> rather directly compare against what
> wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout can return.
>
> Fixes: 68ff2a00dbf59 (firmware_loader: handle timeout via wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout())
> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
> CC: stuart_hayes@...l.com
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario_limonciello@...l.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> index 773fc30..223af70 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> @@ -917,14 +917,11 @@ static int _request_firmware_load(struct firmware_priv *fw_priv,
>                 timeout = MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
>         }
>
> -       retval = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&buf->completion,
> -                       timeout);
> -       if (retval == -ERESTARTSYS || !retval) {
> +       if (wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&buf->completion,
> +                                               timeout) <= 0) {
>                 mutex_lock(&fw_lock);
>                 fw_load_abort(fw_priv);
>                 mutex_unlock(&fw_lock);
> -       } else if (retval > 0) {
> -               retval = 0;
>         }

Good catch, thanks!

Acked-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>

>
>         if (is_fw_load_aborted(buf))
> --
> 2.7.4
>