linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: protect sleepq_len access by sleep

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: <30e138d5-fc51-bbcd-4dfc-3264c258c0bc@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:12:19 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: protect sleepq_len access by
 sleep_q.lock

Hi Fabio,

On 9/13/21 3:39 PM, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> Hello Hans,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi Fabio,
>>
>  
>>> Note that sleep_q.lock is already taken inside
>>> rtw_free_xmitframe_queue so we just wrap sleepq_len
>>> access.
>>>
>>> Moved pxmitpriv->lock after sleep_q.lock release to
>>> avoid locks nesting.
> 
>>>  	rtw_free_xmitframe_queue(pxmitpriv, &psta->sleep_q);
>>> +	spin_lock_bh(&psta->sleep_q.lock);
>>
>> AFAICT this needs to be above the rtw_free_xmitframe_queue() ?
> 
> as I wrote on the changelog, the sleep_q.lock is already
> taken inside rtw_free_xmitframe_queue. If I put the
> sleep_q.lock above that function a soft lock occurs when
> I disconnect.
> 
> So I put it just below rtw_free_xmitframe_queue.
> 
> Things works fine this way.
> 
> Please tell me if there's a best way to do it.

Hmm I see, this may work, but the sleepq_len access
really should be protected by the same lock as the freeing
of the queue is without dropping it in between.

That rtw_free_xmitframe_queue() takes the sleep_q.lock
then to me that signals that other (higher-level) functions should
not take sleep_q.lock at all, since this is then private to the
functions operating on the sleep_q.

I've an idea how we we can possibly tackle this, but I'm not sure
yet I will try to make some time to look into this tomorrow or
the day after.

Regards,

Hans