linux-kernel - [PATCH 02/11] mwifiex: Don't release tx_ba_stream_tbl

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: <20170512164208.38725-2-briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 09:41:59 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Subject: [PATCH 02/11] mwifiex: Don't release tx_ba_stream_tbl_lock while iterating

From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>

Despite the macro list_for_each_entry_safe() having the word "safe" in
the name, it's still not actually safe to release the list spinlock
while iterating over the list.  The "safe" in the macro name actually
only means that it's safe to delete the current entry while iterating
over the list.

Releasing the spinlock while iterating over the list means that someone
else could come in and adjust the list while we don't have the
spinlock.  If they do that it can totally mix up our iteration and fully
corrupt the list.  Later iterating over a corrupted list while holding a
spinlock and having IRQs off can cause all sorts of hard to debug
problems.

As evidenced by the other call to
mwifiex_11n_delete_tx_ba_stream_tbl_entry() in
mwifiex_11n_delete_all_tx_ba_stream_tbl(), it's actually safe to skip
the spinlock release.  Let's do that.

No known problems are fixed by this patch, but it could fix all sorts of
weird problems and it should be very safe.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c | 9 ++-------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c
index c174e79e6df2..c75b6abf16a0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c
@@ -764,14 +764,9 @@ void mwifiex_del_tx_ba_stream_tbl_by_ra(struct mwifiex_private *priv, u8 *ra)
 		return;

 	spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->tx_ba_stream_tbl_lock, flags);
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(tbl, tmp, &priv->tx_ba_stream_tbl_ptr, list) {
-		if (!memcmp(tbl->ra, ra, ETH_ALEN)) {
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->tx_ba_stream_tbl_lock,
-					       flags);
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(tbl, tmp, &priv->tx_ba_stream_tbl_ptr, list)
+		if (!memcmp(tbl->ra, ra, ETH_ALEN))
 			mwifiex_11n_delete_tx_ba_stream_tbl_entry(priv, tbl);
-			spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->tx_ba_stream_tbl_lock, flags);
-		}
-	}
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->tx_ba_stream_tbl_lock, flags);

 	return;
-- 
2.13.0.rc2.291.g57267f2277-goog