linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm

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:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 16:50:13 +0100
From:   Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>, peterhuewe@....de,
        jarkko@...nel.org, stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip

On 05.02.21 16:15, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> No, the cdev layer holds the refcount on the device while open is
> being called.
> 
> Jason
> 

Yes, but the reference that is responsible for the chip deallocation is chip->dev
which is linked to chip->cdev and represents /dev/tpm, not /dev/tpmrm.
You are right, we dont have the issue with /dev/tpm for the reason you mentioned.
But /dev/tpmrm is represented by chip->cdevs and keeping this ref held by the cdev 
layer wont protect us from the chip being freed (which is the reason why we need
the chip->dev reference in the first place).

And yes, the naming dev/devs/cdev/cdevs is quite confusing  :(

Regards,
Lino