linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] xhci: fix two places when dealing with return value of function xhci_check

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4f1bd7fb-050b-ddb3-da69-1e6d32a5a7a1@kylinos.cn>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:47:04 +0800
From:   谢泓宇 <xiehongyu1@...inos.cn>
To:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Hongyu Xie <xy521521@...il.com>, mathias.nyman@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        125707942@...com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] xhci: fix two places when dealing with return value
 of function xhci_check_args

Hi Mathias,

On 2022/1/28 17:48, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 28.1.2022 5.48, 谢泓宇 wrote:
>> Hi Mathias,
>>
>>> xhci_urb_enqueue() shouldn't be called for roothub urbs, but if it is then we
>>> should continue to return -EINVAL
>> xhci_urb_enqueue() won't be called for roothub urbs, only for none roothub urbs(see usb_hcd_submit_urb()).>
>> So xhci_urb_enqueue() will not get 0 from xhci_check_args().
>>
>> Still return -EINVAL if xhci_check_args() returns 0 in xhci_urb_enqueue()?
>>
> Yes. That is what it used to return.
> This is more about code maintaining practice than this specific patch.
>
> Only make the necessary change to fix a bug, especially if the patch is going
> to stable kernels.
> The change to return success ("0") instead of -EINVAL in xhci_urb_enqueue() for
> roothub URBs is irrelevant in fixing your issue.
>
> Debugging future issues is a lot harder when there are small undocumented
> unrelated functional changes scattered around bugfixing patches.
>
> Other reason is that even if you can be almost certain xhci_urb_enqueue() won't
> be called for roothub urbs for this kernel version, it's possible some old stable
> kernel code looks very different, and this change can break that stable version.
>
> Seemingly odd checks in code can indicate the old original code was flawed, and
> quickly worked around by adding the odd check.
> That kernel version might still depend on this odd check even if newer versions
> are fixed properly.
>
>>> xhci_check_args() should be rewritten later, but first we want a targeted fix
>>> that can go to stable.
>>>
>>> Your original patch would be ok after following modification:
>>> if (ret <= 0)
>>>      return ret ? ret : -EINVAL;
>> I have two questions:
>>
>>      1) Why return -EINVAL for roothub urbs?
> - For all reasons stated above
> - Because it used to, and changing it doesn't fix anything
> - Because urbs sent to xhci_urb_enqueue() should have a valid urb->dev->parent,
>    if they don't have it then they are INVALID
>
>>      2) Should I change all the return statements about xhci_check_args() in drivers/usb/host/xhci.c?
>>
>>      There are 6 of them.
> Only make sure your patch doesn't change the functionality unnecessarily.
> There are two places where we return -EINVAL if xhci_check_args() returns 0:
> xhci_urb_enqueue() and xhci_check_streams_endpoint()
> Keep that functionality.
>
> Thanks
> Mathias

I'll fix these in v2.

Thanks

Hongyu Xie