linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] thunderbolt: Fix a leak in tb_retimer

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: <20210329150607.GJ2542@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:06:07 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Kranthi Kuntala <kranthi.kuntala@...el.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] thunderbolt: Fix a leak in tb_retimer_add()

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:54:05AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:43:23PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 
> > The nvm is a separate (physical Linux) device that gets added under this
> > one. It cannot be added before AFAICT.
> 
> Hum, yes, but then it is odd that a parent is holding sysfs attributes
> that refer to a child.

Well the child (NVMem) comes from completely different subsystem that
does not have a concept of "authentication" or anythin similar. This is
what we add on top. We actually exposer two NVMem devices under each
retimer: one that is the current active one, and then the one that is
used to write the new firmware image.

> > The code you refer actually looks like this:
> > 
> > static ssize_t nvm_authenticate_store(struct device *dev,
> >  	struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count)
> > {
> > 	...
> >         if (!mutex_trylock(&rt->tb->lock)) {
> >                 ret = restart_syscall();
> >                 goto exit_rpm;
> >         }
> 
> Is that lock held during tb_retimer_nvm_add() I looked for a bit and
> didn't find something. So someplace more than 4 call site above
> mandatory locking is being held?

Yes it is. It is called from tb_scan_port() where that lock is held.

> static void tb_retimer_remove(struct tb_retimer *rt)
> {
> 	dev_info(&rt->dev, "retimer disconnected\n");
> 	tb_nvm_free(rt->nvm);
> 	device_unregister(&rt->dev);
> }
> 
> Here too?

Yes.

> And this is why it is all trylock because it deadlocks with unregister
> otherwise?

I tried to explain it in 09f11b6c99fe ("thunderbolt: Take domain lock in
switch sysfs attribute callbacks"), except that at that time we did not
have retimers exposed but the same applies here too.