linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: don't do unbalanced free()'ing in cleanup

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: <20161026233554.GF27930@dtor-ws>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:35:54 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Cathy Luo <cluo@...vell.com>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: don't do unbalanced free()'ing in cleanup_if()

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 04:29:20PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> The cleanup_if() callback is the inverse of init_if(). We allocate our
> 'card' interface structure in the probe() function, but we free it in
> cleanup_if(). That gives a few problems:
> (a) we leak this memory if probe() fails before we reach init_if()
> (b) we can't safely utilize 'card' after cleanup_if() -- namely, in
>     remove() or suspend(), both of which might race with the cleanup
>     paths in our asynchronous FW initialization path
> 
> Solution: just use devm_kzalloc(), which will free this structure
> properly when the device is removed -- and drop the set_drvdata(...,
> NULL), since the driver core does this for us. This also removes the
> temptation to use drvdata == NULL as a hack for checking if the device
> has been "cleaned up."
> 
> I *do* leave the set_drvdata(..., NULL) for the hacky SDIO
> mwifiex_recreate_adapter(), since the device core won't be able to clear
> that one for us.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c |  5 +----
>  drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>  drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/usb.c  |  7 +------
>  3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c
> index 063c707844d3..3047c1ab944a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static int mwifiex_pcie_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>  	pr_debug("info: vendor=0x%4.04X device=0x%4.04X rev=%d\n",
>  		 pdev->vendor, pdev->device, pdev->revision);
>  
> -	card = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pcie_service_card), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	card = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*card), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!card)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -2815,7 +2815,6 @@ static int mwifiex_pcie_init(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
>  err_set_dma_mask:
>  	pci_disable_device(pdev);
>  err_enable_dev:
> -	pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> @@ -2849,9 +2848,7 @@ static void mwifiex_pcie_cleanup(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
>  		pci_disable_device(pdev);
>  		pci_release_region(pdev, 2);
>  		pci_release_region(pdev, 0);
> -		pci_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
>  	}
> -	kfree(card);
>  }
>  
>  static int mwifiex_pcie_request_irq(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> index 8718950004f3..f04cf5a551b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ mwifiex_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func, const struct sdio_device_id *id)
>  	pr_debug("info: vendor=0x%4.04X device=0x%4.04X class=%d function=%d\n",
>  		 func->vendor, func->device, func->class, func->num);
>  
> -	card = kzalloc(sizeof(struct sdio_mmc_card), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	card = devm_kzalloc(&func->dev, sizeof(*card), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!card)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ mwifiex_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func, const struct sdio_device_id *id)
>  
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(&func->dev, "failed to enable function\n");
> -		goto err_free;
> +		return ret;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* device tree node parsing and platform specific configuration*/
> @@ -210,8 +210,6 @@ mwifiex_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func, const struct sdio_device_id *id)
>  	sdio_claim_host(func);
>  	sdio_disable_func(func);
>  	sdio_release_host(func);
> -err_free:
> -	kfree(card);
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -2240,8 +2238,6 @@ static void mwifiex_cleanup_sdio(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
>  	kfree(card->mpa_rx.len_arr);
>  	kfree(card->mpa_tx.buf);
>  	kfree(card->mpa_rx.buf);
> -	sdio_set_drvdata(card->func, NULL);
> -	kfree(card);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -2291,6 +2287,14 @@ static void mwifiex_recreate_adapter(struct sdio_mmc_card *card)
>  
>  	mwifiex_sdio_remove(func);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Normally, we would let the driver core take care of releasing these.
> +	 * But we're not letting the driver core handle this one. See above
> +	 * TODO.
> +	 */
> +	sdio_set_drvdata(func, NULL);
> +	devm_kfree(&func->dev, card);

Ugh, this really messes the unwind order... I guess it is OK since it is
the only resource allocated with devm, but I'd be happier if we could
reuse existing "card" structure.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry