[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YRvjlf4V1UOse5ld@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:28:05 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Saubhik Mukherjee <saubhik.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc: isdn@...ux-pingi.de, jirislaby@...nel.org, dsterba@...e.com,
jcmvbkbc@...il.com, johannes@...solutions.net, kuba@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andrianov@...ras.ru
Subject: Re: [question] potential race between capinc_tty_init & capi_release
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 02:43:22PM +0530, Saubhik Mukherjee wrote:
> In drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c, based on the output of a static analysis tool,
> we found the possibility of the following race condition:
Do you know of any isdn capi devices out there in the world right now?
>
> In capi_init, register_chrdev registers file operations callbacks,
> capi_fops. Then capinc_tty_init is executed.
>
> Simultaneously the following chain of calls can occur (after a successful
> capi_open call).
>
> capi_release -> capincci_free -> capincci_free_minor -> capiminor_free ->
> tty_unregister_device
>
> tty_unregister_device reads capinc_tty_driver, which might not have been
> initialized at this point. So, we have a race between capi_release and
> capinc_tty_init.
>
> If this is a possible race scenario, maybe moving register_chrdev after
> capinc_tty_init could fix it. But I am not sure if this will break something
> else. Please let me know if this is a potential race and can be fixed as
> mentioned.
Would you be racing now if someone opened/closed the tty device node
before the char device node was created?
Anyway, this is really old and obsolete code, odds are it can just be
removed entirely.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists