Message-ID: <20200512082551.GA3526567@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 10:25:51 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     rananta@...eaurora.org, andrew@...nix.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: hvc: Fix data abort due to race in hvc_open

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:22:15AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11. 05. 20, 9:39, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:23:58AM -0700, rananta@...eaurora.org wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-09 23:48, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 06:30:56PM -0700, rananta@...eaurora.org wrote:
> >>>> On 2020-05-06 02:48, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:26:01PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> >>>>>> Potentially, hvc_open() can be called in parallel when two tasks calls
> >>>>>> open() on /dev/hvcX. In such a scenario, if the
> >>>>>> hp->ops->notifier_add()
> >>>>>> callback in the function fails, where it sets the tty->driver_data to
> >>>>>> NULL, the parallel hvc_open() can see this NULL and cause a memory
> >>>>>> abort.
> >>>>>> Hence, serialize hvc_open and check if tty->private_data is NULL
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>> proceeding ahead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The issue can be easily reproduced by launching two tasks
> >>>>>> simultaneously
> >>>>>> that does nothing but open() and close() on /dev/hvcX.
> >>>>>> For example:
> >>>>>> $ ./simple_open_close /dev/hvc0 & ./simple_open_close /dev/hvc0 &
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...eaurora.org>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_console.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> >>>>>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_console.c
> >>>>>> b/drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_console.c
> >>>>>> index 436cc51c92c3..ebe26fe5ac09 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_console.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_console.c
> >>>>>> @@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ static LIST_HEAD(hvc_structs);
> >>>>>>   */
> >>>>>>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(hvc_structs_mutex);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +/* Mutex to serialize hvc_open */
> >>>>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(hvc_open_mutex);
> >>>>>>  /*
> >>>>>>   * This value is used to assign a tty->index value to a hvc_struct
> >>>>>> based
> >>>>>>   * upon order of exposure via hvc_probe(), when we can not match it
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> @@ -346,16 +348,24 @@ static int hvc_install(struct tty_driver
> >>>>>> *driver, struct tty_struct *tty)
> >>>>>>   */
> >>>>>>  static int hvc_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * filp)
> >>>>>>  {
> >>>>>> -	struct hvc_struct *hp = tty->driver_data;
> >>>>>> +	struct hvc_struct *hp;
> >>>>>>  	unsigned long flags;
> >>>>>>  	int rc = 0;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +	mutex_lock(&hvc_open_mutex);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +	hp = tty->driver_data;
> >>>>>> +	if (!hp) {
> >>>>>> +		rc = -EIO;
> >>>>>> +		goto out;
> >>>>>> +	}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&hp->port.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>  	/* Check and then increment for fast path open. */
> >>>>>>  	if (hp->port.count++ > 0) {
> >>>>>>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hp->port.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>  		hvc_kick();
> >>>>>> -		return 0;
> >>>>>> +		goto out;
> >>>>>>  	} /* else count == 0 */
> >>>>>>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hp->port.lock, flags);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wait, why isn't this driver just calling tty_port_open() instead of
> >>>>> trying to open-code all of this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Keeping a single mutext for open will not protect it from close, it will
> >>>>> just slow things down a bit.  There should already be a tty lock held by
> >>>>> the tty core for open() to keep it from racing things, right?
> >>>> The tty lock should have been held, but not likely across
> >>>> ->install() and
> >>>> ->open() callbacks, thus resulting in a race between hvc_install() and
> >>>> hvc_open(),
> >>>
> >>> How?  The tty lock is held in install, and should not conflict with
> >>> open(), otherwise, we would be seeing this happen in all tty drivers,
> >>> right?
> >>>
> >> Well, I was expecting the same, but IIRC, I see that the open() was being
> >> called in parallel for the same device node.
> > 
> > So open and install are happening at the same time?  And the tty_lock()
> > does not protect the needed fields from being protected properly?  If
> > not, what fields are being touched without the lock?
> > 
> >> Is it expected that the tty core would allow only one thread to
> >> access the dev-node, while blocking the other, or is it the client
> >> driver's responsibility to handle the exclusiveness?
> > 
> > The tty core should handle this correctly, for things that can mess
> > stuff up (like install and open at the same time).  A driver should not
> > have to worry about that.
> > 
> >>>> where hvc_install() sets a data and the hvc_open() clears it.
> >>>> hvc_open()
> >>>> doesn't
> >>>> check if the data was set to NULL and proceeds.
> >>>
> >>> What data is being set that hvc_open is checking?
> >> hvc_install sets tty->private_data to hp, while hvc_open sets it to NULL (in
> >> one of the paths).
> > 
> > I see no use of private_data in drivers/tty/hvc/ so what exactly are you
> > referring to?
> 
> He likely means tty->driver_data. And there exactly lays the issue.
> 
> commit bdb498c20040616e94b05c31a0ceb3e134b7e829
> Author: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
> Date:   Tue Aug 7 21:48:04 2012 +0200
> 
>     TTY: hvc_console, add tty install
> 
> added hvc_install but did not move 'tty->driver_data = NULL;' from
> hvc_open's fail path to hvc_cleanup.
> 
> IOW hvc_open now NULLs tty->driver_data even for another task which
> opened the tty earlier. The same holds for "tty_port_tty_set(&hp->port,
> NULL);" there. And actually "tty_port_put(&hp->port);" is also incorrect
> for the 2nd task opening the tty.
> 
> So, a mutex with tty->driver_data check in open is not definitely the
> way to go. This mess needs to be sorted out properly. Sure, a good start
> would be a conversion to tty_port_open. Right after dropping "tty: hvc:
> Fix data abort due to race in hvc_open" from tty/tty-next :).

I've now reverted this commit so we can start from a "clean" place.

> What I *don't* understand is why hp->ops->notifier_add fails, given the
> open does not allow multiple opens anyway?

I don't understand that either.  Raghavendra, can you show a real trace
for this issue that shows this?

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists