[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171004082607.GA18449@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:26:07 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: usb/sound/bcd2000: warning in bcd2000_init_device
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:08:24AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:52:36 +0200,
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:10:59AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 19:42:21 +0200,
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:50:08PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a dev_WARN because it indicates a potentially serious error in the
> > > > > > > driver: The driver has submitted an interrupt URB to a bulk endpoint.
> > > > > > > That may not sound bad, but the same check gets triggered if a driver
> > > > > > > submits a bulk URB to an isochronous endpoint, or any other invalid
> > > > > > > combination.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most likely the explanation here is that the driver doesn't bother to
> > > > > > > check the endpoint type because it expects the endpoint will always be
> > > > > > > interrupt. But that is not a safe strategy. USB devices and their
> > > > > > > firmware should not be trusted unnecessarily.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The best fix is, like you said, to add a sanity check in the caller.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, but then do we have some handy helper for the check?
> > > > > > As other bug reports by syzkaller suggest, there are a few other
> > > > > > drivers that do the same, submitting a urb with naive assumption of
> > > > > > the fixed EP for specific devices. In the end we'll need to put the
> > > > > > very same checks there in multiple places.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps we could add a helper routine that would take a list of
> > > > > expected endpoint types and check that the actual endpoints match the
> > > > > types. But of course, all the drivers you're talking about would have
> > > > > to add a call to this helper routine.
> > > >
> > > > We have almost this type of function, usb_find_common_endpoints(),
> > > > what's wrong with using that? Johan has already swept the tree and
> > > > added a lot of these checks, odds are no one looked at the sound/
> > > > subdir...
> > >
> > > Well, what I had in my mind is just a snippet from usb_submit_urb(),
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > bool usb_sanity_check_urb_pipe(struct urb *urb)
> > > {
> > > struct usb_host_endpoint *ep;
> > > int xfertype;
> > > static const int pipetypes[4] = {
> > > PIPE_CONTROL, PIPE_ISOCHRONOUS, PIPE_BULK, PIPE_INTERRUPT
> > > };
> > >
> > > ep = usb_pipe_endpoint(urb->dev, urb->pipe);
> > > xfertype = usb_endpoint_type(&ep->desc);
> > > return usb_pipetype(urb->pipe) != pipetypes[xfertype];
> > > }
> > >
> > > And calling this before usb_submit_urb() in each place that assigns
> > > the fixed EP as device-specific quirks.
> > > Does it make sense?
> >
> > Yes, kind of, but checking the endpoint type/direction is what you are
> > expecting it to be as you "know" what the type should be for each
> > driver as it is unique.
>
> Yes, it can be simplified, but if we want a common helper function,
> this style would have an advantage that it can be used generically for
> all drivers.
>
> > Anyway, a "real" patch might make more sense to me.
>
> I can cook up a patch if you find it a good idea to add such a common
> function to usb core side. OTOH, if each driver should open-code this
> in each place, I can work on that, too. Which would you prefer?
A common function is good, open-coding is bad :)
Try it with a driver or two to see what it looks like?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists