linux-kernel - Re: Is usb_hcd_giveback_urb() allowed in task context?

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, 5 Oct 2020 11:25:40 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.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 05:21:30PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 5:18 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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. 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 kcov, and is not true as you have found out :)
> 
> OK, I see, I'll work on a fix, thanks!
> 
> Should I also update the comment above usb_hcd_giveback_urb() to
> mention that it can be called in_task()? Or is this redundant and is
> assumed in general?

No, no -- it won't work right if it's called in process context.  Not 
only do the spinlock calls leave the interrupt flag unchanged, also the 
driver callback routines may expect to be invoked with interrupts 
disabled.  (We have tried to fix this, but I'm not at all certain that 
all the cases have been updated.)

Alan Stern