linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible NULL pointer issue

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]

Message-ID: <b2385bdf0ce1ac799ccf77c2e952d9bf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Sat, 02 Jan 2021 20:29:56 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        hongwus@...eaurora.org, ziqichen@...eaurora.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible NULL pointer issue

On 2021-01-02 00:05, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/31/20 9:44 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> During system resume/suspend, hba could be NULL. In this case, do not 
>> touch
>> eh_sem.
>> 
>> Fixes: 88a92d6ae4fe ("scsi: ufs: Serialize eh_work with system PM 
>> events and async scan")
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 9 +++++----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> index e221add..34e2541 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -8896,8 +8896,11 @@ int ufshcd_system_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  	int ret = 0;
>>  	ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>> 
>> +	if (!hba)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>>  	down(&hba->eh_sem);
>> -	if (!hba || !hba->is_powered)
>> +	if (!hba->is_powered)
>>  		return 0;
>> 
>>  	if ((ufs_get_pm_lvl_to_dev_pwr_mode(hba->spm_lvl) ==
>> @@ -8945,10 +8948,8 @@ int ufshcd_system_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>  	int ret = 0;
>>  	ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>> 
>> -	if (!hba) {
>> -		up(&hba->eh_sem);
>> +	if (!hba)
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>> -	}
>> 
>>  	if (!hba->is_powered || pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev))
>>  		/*
> 
> Hi Can,
> 
> How can ufshcd_system_suspend() or ufshcd_system_resume() be called 
> with a
> NULL argument? In ufshcd_pci_probe() I see that pci_set_drvdata() is 
> called
> before pm_runtime_allow(). ufshcd_pci_remove() calls 
> pm_runtime_forbid().
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.

Hi Bart,

You are right about ufshcd_RUNTIME_suspend/resume() - 
platform_set_drvdata()
is called before pm_runtime_enable(), so runtime suspend/resume cannot 
happen
before pm_runtime_enable() is called. We can remove the sanity checks of
!hba there, they are outdated.

But for ufshcd_SYSTEM_suspend/resume() callbacks (not runtime ones), my
understanding is that system suspend/resume may happen after probe 
(vendor
driver probe calls ufshcd_pltfrm_init()) starts but before 
platform_set_drvdata()
is called, in this case hba is NULL.

int ufshcd_pltfrm_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
		       const struct ufs_hba_variant_ops *vops)
{
...
  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hba);

	pm_runtime_set_active(&pdev->dev);
	pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
}

Thanks,

Can Guo.