linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: snvs: fix possible race condition

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: <20190720195551.GB3271@piout.net>
Date:   Sat, 20 Jul 2019 21:55:51 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...inj.com>
Cc:     "linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "anson.huang@....com" <anson.huang@....com>,
        "a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "aisheng.dong@....com" <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        "linux-imx@....com" <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: snvs: fix possible race condition

On 19/07/2019 19:04:21+0000, Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 02:57 +0000, Anson Huang wrote:
> > 
> > > I do worry that handling the irq before the rtc device is registered could still
> > > result in a crash.  From what I saw, the irq path in snvs only uses driver state
> > > members that are fully initialized for the most part, and the allocated but
> > > unregistered data->rtc is only used in one call to rtc_update_irq(), which
> > > appears to be ok with this.
> > > 
> > > But it is not that hard to imagine that something could go into the rtc core
> > > that assumes call like rtc_update_irq() are only made on registered devices.
> > > 
> > > If there was a way to do it, I think allocating the irq in a masked state and
> > > then unmasking it as part of the final registration call to make the device go
> > > live would be a safer and more general pattern.
> > 
> > It makes sense, I think we can just move the devm_request_irq() to after rtc_register_device(),
> > It will make sure everything is ready before IRQ is enabled. Will send out a V2 patch. 
> 
> That will mean registering the rtc, then unregistering it if the irq
> request fails.  More of a pain to write this failure path.
> 
> Alexandre, is it part of rtc core design that rtc_update_irq() might be
> called on a rtc device that is properly allocated, but not registered
> yet?

Yes, the main reason of the change of API was exactly to handle this.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com