linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpiolib: use kref in gpio

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:36:57 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Khouloud Touil <ktouil@...libre.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpiolib: use kref in gpio_desc

czw., 26 mar 2020 o 21:50 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:47 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > czw., 12 mar 2020 o 11:35 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> napisał(a):
>
> > In this case I was thinking about a situation where we pass a
> > requested descriptor to some other framework (nvmem in this case)
> > which internally doesn't know anything about who manages this resource
> > externally. Now we can of course simply not do anything about it and
> > expect the user (who passed us the descriptor) to handle the resources
> > correctly. But what happens if the user releases the descriptor not on
> > driver detach but somewhere else for whatever reason while nvmem
> > doesn't know about it? It may try to use the descriptor which will now
> > be invalid. Reference counting in this case would help IMHO.
>
> I'm so confused because I keep believing it is reference counted
> elsewhere.
>
> struct gpio_desc *d always comes from the corresponding
> struct gpio_device *descs array. This:
>
> struct gpio_device {
>         int                     id;
>         struct device           dev;
> (...)
>         struct gpio_desc        *descs;
> (...)
>
> This array is allocated in gpiochip_add_data_with_key() like this:
>
>         gdev->descs = kcalloc(chip->ngpio, sizeof(gdev->descs[0]), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Then it gets free:d in gpiodevice_release():
>
> static void gpiodevice_release(struct device *dev)
> {
>         struct gpio_device *gdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> (...)
>         kfree(gdev->descs);
>         kfree(gdev);
> }
>
> This is the .release function for the gdev->dev, the device inside
> struct gpio_device,
> i.e. the same device that contains the descs in the first place. So it
> is just living
> and dying with the struct gpio_device.
>
> struct gpio_device does *NOT* die in the devm_* destructor that gets called
> when someone has e.g. added a gpiochip using devm_gpiochip_add_data().
>
> I think the above observation is crucial: the lifetime of struct gpio_chip and
> struct gpio_device are decoupled. When the struct gpio_chip dies, that
> just "numbs" all gpio descriptors but they stay around along with the
> struct gpio_device that contain them until the last
> user is gone.
>
> The struct gpio_device reference counted with the call to get_device(&gdev->dev)
> in gpiod_request() which is on the path of gpiod_get_[index]().
>
> If a consumer gets a gpio_desc using any gpiod_get* API this gets
> increased and it gets decreased at every gpiod_put() or by the
> managed resources.
>
> So should you not rather exploit this fact and just add something
> like:
>
> void gpiod_reference(struct gpio_desc *desc)
> {
>     struct gpio_device *gdev;
>
>     VALIDATE_DESC(desc);
>     gdev = desc->gdev;
>     get_device(&gdev->dev);
> }
>
> void gpiod_unreference(struct gpio_desc *desc)
> {
>     struct gpio_device *gdev;
>
>     VALIDATE_DESC(desc);
>     gdev = desc->gdev;
>     put_device(&gdev->dev);
> }
>
> This should make sure the desc and the backing gpio_device
> stays around until all references are gone.
>
> NB: We also issue try_module_get() on the module that drives the
> GPIO, which will make it impossible to unload that module while it
> has active GPIOs. I think maybe the whole logic inside gpiod_request()
> is needed to properly add an extra reference to a gpiod else someone
> can (theoretically) pull out the module from below.
>

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I'll make some time
(hopefully soon) to actually test this path and let you know if it
works as expected.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski