linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 3/5] extcon: extcon-max77693.c: Fix potential work-queue cancellation race

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: <5939eb35e75e9f1288042430c367650b2e8b2996.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:57:40 +0300
From:   Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 3/5] extcon: extcon-max77693.c: Fix potential
 work-queue cancellation race


On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 18:43 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> On 6/8/21 7:10 PM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > The extcon IRQ schedules a work item. IRQ is requested using devm
> > while
> > WQ is cancelld at remove(). This mixing of devm and manual
> > unwinding has
> > potential case where the WQ has been emptied (.remove() was ran)
> > but
> > devm unwinding of IRQ was not yet done. It may be possible the IRQ
> > is
> > triggered at this point scheduling new work item to the already
> > flushed
> > queue.
> > 
> > According to the input documentation the input device allocated by
> > devm_input_allocate_device() does not need to be explicitly
> > unregistered.
> > Use the new devm_work_autocancel() and remove the remove() to
> > simplify the
> > code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com
> > >
> > Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Please note that the change is compile-tested only. All proper
> > testing is
> > highly appreciated.
> > ---
> >  drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c | 17 +++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
> > b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
> > index 92af97e00828..1f1d9ab0c5c7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
> > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
> > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >  // Copyright (C) 2012 Samsung Electrnoics
> >  // Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
> >  
> > +#include <linux/devm-helpers.h>
> >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/i2c.h>
> > @@ -1127,7 +1128,10 @@ static int max77693_muic_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> >  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
> >  	mutex_init(&info->mutex);
> >  
> > -	INIT_WORK(&info->irq_work, max77693_muic_irq_work);
> > +	ret = devm_work_autocancel(&pdev->dev, &info->irq_work,
> > +				   max77693_muic_irq_work);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> >  
> >  	/* Support irq domain for MAX77693 MUIC device */
> >  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(muic_irqs); i++) {
> > @@ -1254,22 +1258,11 @@ static int max77693_muic_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int max77693_muic_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > -{
> > -	struct max77693_muic_info *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > -
> > -	cancel_work_sync(&info->irq_work);
> > -	input_unregister_device(info->dock);
> 
> I think that you have to keep the input_unregister_device().

Are you sure? I can add back the remove() if required - but the
kerneldoc for devm_input_allocate_device() seems to be suggesting that
this would not be needed:

 * Managed input devices do not need to be explicitly unregistered or
 * freed as it will be done automatically when owner device unbinds
from
 * its driver (or binding fails). Once managed input device is
allocated,
 * it is ready to be set up and registered in the same fashion as
regular
 * input device. There are no special devm_input_device_[un]register()
 * variants, regular ones work with both managed and unmanaged devices,
 * should you need them. In most cases however, managed input device
need
 * not be explicitly unregistered or freed.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc5/source/drivers/input/input.c#L1955

I am not going to argue with you though - I am not really familiar with
the input subsystem. I'd appreciate if someone could shed some light on
when the input_unregister_device() can be omitted? 

Best Regards
	Matti Vaittinen