[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877dawa70b.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 01:44:52 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Tong Zhang <ztong0001@...il.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] genirq/msi: fix crash when handling Multi-MSI
On Tue, Jan 18 2022 at 15:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17 2022 at 11:36, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:10:13 +0000,
>> Tong Zhang <ztong0001@...il.com> wrote:
>>> pci_msi_domain_check_cap (used by ops->msi_check(domain, info, dev))
>>> msi_domain_prepare_irqs
>>> __msi_domain_alloc_irqs
>>> msi_domain_alloc_irqs_descs_locked
>>>
>>> What I am suggesting is commit 0f62d941acf9 changed how this return
>>> value is being handled and created a UAF
>>
>> OK, this makes more sense.
>>
>> But msi_domain_prepare_irqs() shouldn't fail in this case, and we
>> should proceed with the allocation of at least one vector, which isn't
>> happening here.
>>
>> Also, if __msi_domain_alloc_irqs() is supposed to return the number of
>> irqs allocated, it isn't doing it consistently.
>>
>> Thomas, can you shed some light on what is the intended behaviour
>> here?
>
> Let me stare at it.
It's a subtle issue I overlooked. The UAF is due to
err:
pci_msi_unmask(entry, msi_multi_mask(entry));
in msi_capability_init() because the core has torn down and freed the
entry already.
The proposed patch "fixes" the issue for the PCI/MSI case, but could
cause a memory leak for other callers.
Not sure yet what the proper fix is, but that has to wait until tomorrow
when brain becomes awake again.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists