linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 088/190] Revert "mmc_spi: add a status check for spi_sync

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:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:18:03 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 088/190] Revert "mmc_spi: add a status check for
 spi_sync_locked"

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:08:45AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 15:19, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:59:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 611025983b7976df0183390a63a2166411d177f1.
> > >
> > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
> > > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
> > > malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
> > > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> > > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> > > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > >
> > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> > > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> > > they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> > > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > > codebase.
> > >
> > > Cc: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
> > > Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
> > > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
> >
> > I don't spot an obvious issue with the original patch though.
> >
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c | 4 ----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
> > > index 02f4fd26e76a..cc40b050e302 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_spi.c
> > > @@ -800,10 +800,6 @@ mmc_spi_readblock(struct mmc_spi_host *host, struct spi_transfer *t,
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       status = spi_sync_locked(spi, &host->m);
> > > -     if (status < 0) {
> > > -             dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "read error %d\n", status);
> > > -             return status;
> > > -     }
> 
> Returning here means we never give back the ownership of the buffer to
> the CPU. Can that be considered as vulnerability?

It's a "resource leak", which is a bug.  If you want to declare that as
a "vulnerability" or not, I do not know.  Personally I do not think it
is...

> If that is that a problem, I can point out that there is already one
> more case in this file, where this pattern is repeated. See
> mmc_spi_writeblock(). This code has been there since 2007.

Yeah, these error paths are impossible to hit anyway.

I'll go drop this patch as it is not correct and will create a "correct"
patch for this as well.

thanks,

greg k-h