[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd8a18f33a3f385575048969482fd22f@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 13:31:33 -0700
From: Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: call cancel_work_sync from
irq_set_affinity_notifier
On 2019-03-21 09:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Prasad,
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Prasad Sodagudi wrote:
>
>> Subject: [PATCH] genirq: call cancel_work_sync from
>> irq_set_affinity_notifier
>
> Please do not decribe WHAT the code change is. Give a consice
> explanation
> WHY this change is done. The above is like '[PATCH] foo: Increment bar
> by 5'.
>
> [PATCH] genirq: Prevent UAF and work list corruption
>
>> When ever notification of IRQ affinity changes, call
>> cancel_work_sync from irq_set_affinity_notifier to cancel
>> all pending works to avoid work list corruption.
>
> Again, you describe first WHAT you are doing instead of telling WHY.
>
> When irq_set_affinity_notifier() replaces the notifier, then the
> reference count on the old notifier is dropped which causes it to be
> freed. But nothing ensures that the old notifier is not longer queued
> in
> the work list. If it is queued this results in a use after free and
> possibly in work list corruption.
>
> Ensure that the work is canceled before the reference is dropped.
>
> See?
Hi Tglx,
Thanks for suggesting commit text and modifications.
>
> This gives precise context first and then describes the cure.
>
> Also it is completely irrelevant whether this is achieved by calling
> cancel_work_sync() or by something else. What matters is that it's
> canceled. Changelogs describe context and concepts not implementation
> details. The implementation details are in the patch itself.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/irq/manage.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
>> index 9ec34a2..da8b2ee 100644
>> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
>> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
>> @@ -356,6 +356,9 @@ static void irq_affinity_notify(struct work_struct
>> *work)
>> desc->affinity_notify = notify;
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
>>
>> + if (!notify && old_notify)
>> + cancel_work_sync(&old_notify->work);
>
> That '!notify' doesn't make any sense.
Yes. I will remove this in the next patch set. Thanks for reviewing.
-thanks, Prasad
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists