[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201005152218.GF376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:22:18 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Nazime Hande Harputluoglu <handeharputlu@...gle.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is usb_hcd_giveback_urb() allowed in task context?
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> Dear USB and USB/IP maintainers,
>
> While fuzzing the USB/IP stack with syzkaller we've stumbled upon an issue.
>
> Currently kcov (the subsystem that is used for coverage collection)
> USB-related callbacks assume that usb_hcd_giveback_urb() can only be
> called from interrupt context, as indicated by the comment before the
> function definition.
The primary reason for this restriction (as far as I'm aware) is because
the routine uses spin_lock/spin_unlock rather than the
_irqsave/_irqrestore variants. There's also a small efficiency issue:
In the vast majority of cases involving real host controllers, the
routine _will_ be called in interrupt context. So we optimized for that
case.
> In the USB/IP code, however, it's called from the
> task context (see the stack trace below).
>
> Is this something that is allowed and we need to fix kcov? Or is this
> a bug in USB/IP?
It's a bug in USB/IP. Interrupts should be disabled when it calls
usb_hcd_giveback_urb().
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists