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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20190409085717.d24c636fuzpoxume@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:57:17 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "wens@...e.org" <wens@...e.org>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "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 Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 05:31:48AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 23:21 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think we all agreed on this already. Stephen pointed out that the
> current user(s) of clk_find() do _not_ dereference the pointer.

Which is actually another incorrect statement - clk_get_sys()
dereferences it, but Stephen's patch does rearrange the code there.

-- 
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