[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YQ1uYSQ2T5kMrwfI@anirudhrb.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 22:46:17 +0530
From: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@...rudhrb.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbip: give back URBs for unsent unlink requests during
cleanup
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 06:47:54PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 10:10:14PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote:
> > In vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(), the URBs for unsent unlink requests are
> > not given back. This sometimes causes usb_kill_urb to wait indefinitely
> > for that urb to be given back. syzbot has reported a hung task issue [1]
> > for this.
> >
> > To fix this, give back the urbs corresponding to unsent unlink requests
> > (unlink_tx list) similar to how urbs corresponding to unanswered unlink
> > requests (unlink_rx list) are given back. Since the code is almost the
> > same, extract it into a new function and call it for both unlink_rx and
> > unlink_tx lists.
> >
> > [1]: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=08f12df95ae7da69814e64eb5515d5a85ed06b76
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Tested-by: syzbot+74d6ef051d3d2eacf428@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@...rudhrb.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > index 4ba6bcdaa8e9..45f98aa12895 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> > @@ -945,7 +945,8 @@ static int vhci_urb_dequeue(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb, int status)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > +static void __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list(struct vhci_device *vdev,
> > + struct list_head *unlink_list)
> > {
> > struct vhci_hcd *vhci_hcd = vdev_to_vhci_hcd(vdev);
> > struct usb_hcd *hcd = vhci_hcd_to_hcd(vhci_hcd);
> > @@ -953,23 +954,25 @@ static void vhci_device_unlink_cleanup(struct vhci_device *vdev)
> > struct vhci_unlink *unlink, *tmp;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + if (unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_tx
> > + && unlink_list != &vdev->unlink_rx) {
> > + pr_err("Invalid list passed to __vhci_cleanup_unlink_list\n");
> > + BUG();
>
> Do not allow the system to crash, that is not ok.
>
> > + return;
>
> This call makes no sense as you just rebooted the machine :(
>
> Handle errors properly and recover from them and move on. A single tiny
> driver should not take down the whole system.
The execution can reach only if there is a developer error and they passed
some random list in `unlink_list`. So, BUG() here crashes the kernel and
draws attention to this fact. Is WARN() a better option here? There is
no way to recover from this and continue with the rest of the function.
Either we WARN()/BUG() or we return silently.
Thanks!
- Anirudh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists