linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] clkdev: Hold clocks

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]

Message-ID: <20190408222106.ect7nwjsklzhmdwj@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:21:06 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "wens@...e.org" <wens@...e.org>,
        "miquel.raynal@...tlin.com" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        "jhugo@...eaurora.org" <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jbrunet@...libre.com" <jbrunet@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] clkdev: Hold clocks_mutex while iterating clocks
 list

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:00:02AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2019-04-08 03:49:41)
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:37:24PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Vaittinen, Matti (2019-04-04 23:51:43)
> > > > On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 14:53 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > We recently introduced a change to support devm clk lookups. That
> > > > > change
> > > > > introduced a code-path that used clk_find() without holding the
> > > > > 'clocks_mutex'. Unfortunately, clk_find() iterates over the 'clocks'
> > > > > list and so we need to prevent the list from being modified while
> > > > > iterating over it by holding the mutex. Similarly, we don't need to
> > > > > hold
> > > > > the 'clocks_mutex' besides when we're dereferencing the clk_lookup
> > > > > pointer
> > > > 
> > > > /// Snip
> > > > 
> > > > > -out:
> > > > > +static struct clk_lookup *clk_find(const char *dev_id, const char
> > > > > *con_id)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     struct clk_lookup *cl;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex);
> > > > > +     cl = __clk_find(dev_id, con_id);
> > > > >       mutex_unlock(&clocks_mutex);
> > > > >  
> > > > > -     return cl ? clk : ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> > > > > +     return cl;
> > > > > +}
> > > > 
> > > > I am not an expert on this but reading commit message abowe and seeing
> > > > the code for clk_find() looks a bit scary. If I understand it
> > > > correctly, the clocks_mutex should be held when dereferencing the
> > > > clk_lookup returned by clk_find. The clk_find implementation drops the
> > > > lock before returning - which makes me think I miss something here. How
> > > > can the caller ever safely dereference returned clk_lookup pointer?
> > > > Just reading abowe makes me think that lock should be taken by whoever
> > > > is calling the clk_find, and dropped only after caller has used the
> > > > found clk_lookup for whatever caller intends to use it. Maybe I am
> > > > missing something?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The only user after this patch (devm) is doing a pointer comparison so
> > > it looks OK. But yes, in general there shouldn't be users of clk_find()
> > > that dereference the pointer because there isn't any protection besides
> > > the mutex.
> > 
> > If the only (intended) user for clk_find is devm_clk_release_clkdev,
> > then we might want to write it in devm_clk_release_clkdev - just to
> > avoid similar errors (as I did with devm) in the future? I might even
> > consider renaming __clk_find to clk_find or to clk_find_unsafe - but
> > that's all just nitpicking :) Go with what you like to maintain :D
> > 
> 
> Sure. I was thinking along the same lines after you asked.

This is rubbish.  The reason clk_find() doesn't take the lock is that
you _need_ to hold the lock while you dereference the clk_lookup data.
The lock isn't protecting just the lookup, it protects what you do with
the result of the lookup as well.

So, as I say, adding locking inside clk_find() is completely
misunderstanding the locking here.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up