linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v03] powerpc/mobility: Fix node detach/rename problem

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:56:38 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        tlfalcon@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, minkim@...ibm.com,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v03] powerpc/mobility: Fix node detach/rename problem

Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
...
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
>> index 09692c9b32a7..d8e4534c0686 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
>> @@ -1190,6 +1190,10 @@ struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle)
>>                 if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] &&
>>                     handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle)
>>                         np = phandle_cache[masked_handle];
>> +
>> +               /* If we find a detached node, remove it */
>> +               if (of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED))
>> +                       np = phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
>
> I'm wondering if we should explicitly remove the node from the cache
> when we set OF_DETACHED. Otherwise, it could be possible that the node
> pointer has been freed already.

Yeah good point.

> Or maybe we need both?

That's probably best, it could even be a WARN_ON() if we find one in
of_find_node_by_phandle().

cheers