[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191021085627.GD24768@localhost>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:56:27 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] USB: ldusb: fix ring-buffer locking
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The custom ring-buffer implementation was merged without any locking
> > whatsoever, but a spinlock was later added by commit 9d33efd9a791
> > ("USB: ldusb bugfix").
> >
> > The lock did not cover the loads from the ring-buffer entry after
> > determining the buffer was non-empty, nor the update of the tail index
> > once the entry had been processed. The former could lead to stale data
> > being returned, while the latter could lead to memory corruption on
> > sufficiently weakly ordered architectures.
>
> Ugh.
>
> This almost looks sane, but what's the odds there is some other issue in
> here as well? Would it make sense to just convert the code to use the
> "standard" ring buffer code instead?
Yeah, long term that may be the right thing to do, but I wanted a
minimal fix addressing the issue at hand without having to reimplement
the driver and fix all other (less-critical) issues in there...
For the ring-buffer corruption / info-leak issue, these two patches
should be sufficient though.
Copying the ring-buffer entry to a temporary buffer while holding the
lock might still be preferred to avoid having to deal with barrier
subtleties. But unless someone speaks out against 2/2, I'd just go ahead
and apply it.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists