| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:18:36 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: duoming@....edu.cn
To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, alexander.deucher@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, broonie@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linma@....edu.cn
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net v5 1/2] nfc: replace improper check
device_is_registered() in netlink related functions
Hello,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:19:36 +0200 Krzysztof wrote:
> > The device_is_registered() in nfc core is used to check whether
> > nfc device is registered in netlink related functions such as
> > nfc_fw_download(), nfc_dev_up() and so on. Although device_is_registered()
> > is protected by device_lock, there is still a race condition between
> > device_del() and device_is_registered(). The root cause is that
> > kobject_del() in device_del() is not protected by device_lock.
> >
> > (cleanup task) | (netlink task)
> > |
> > nfc_unregister_device | nfc_fw_download
> > device_del | device_lock
> > ... | if (!device_is_registered)//(1)
> > kobject_del//(2) | ...
> > ... | device_unlock
> >
> > The device_is_registered() returns the value of state_in_sysfs and
> > the state_in_sysfs is set to zero in kobject_del(). If we pass check in
> > position (1), then set zero in position (2). As a result, the check
> > in position (1) is useless.
> >
> > This patch uses bool variable instead of device_is_registered() to judge
> > whether the nfc device is registered, which is well synchronized.
> >
> > Fixes: 3e256b8f8dfa ("NFC: add nfc subsystem core")
> > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
> > ---
> > Changes in v5:
> > - Replace device_is_registered() to bool variable.
> >
> > include/net/nfc/nfc.h | 1 +
> > net/nfc/core.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
> > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/nfc/nfc.h b/include/net/nfc/nfc.h
> > index 5dee575fbe8..7bb4ccb1830 100644
> > --- a/include/net/nfc/nfc.h
> > +++ b/include/net/nfc/nfc.h
> > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ struct nfc_dev {
> > int n_targets;
> > int targets_generation;
> > struct device dev;
> > + bool dev_register;
> > bool dev_up;
> > bool fw_download_in_progress;
> > u8 rf_mode;
> > diff --git a/net/nfc/core.c b/net/nfc/core.c
> > index dc7a2404efd..52147da2286 100644
> > --- a/net/nfc/core.c
> > +++ b/net/nfc/core.c
> > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ int nfc_fw_download(struct nfc_dev *dev, const char *firmware_name)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ int nfc_dev_up(struct nfc_dev *dev)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ int nfc_dev_down(struct nfc_dev *dev)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ int nfc_start_poll(struct nfc_dev *dev, u32 im_protocols, u32 tm_protocols)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ int nfc_stop_poll(struct nfc_dev *dev)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ int nfc_dep_link_up(struct nfc_dev *dev, int target_index, u8 comm_mode)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ int nfc_dep_link_down(struct nfc_dev *dev)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ int nfc_activate_target(struct nfc_dev *dev, u32 target_idx, u32 protocol)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ int nfc_deactivate_target(struct nfc_dev *dev, u32 target_idx, u8 mode)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ int nfc_data_exchange(struct nfc_dev *dev, u32 target_idx, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > kfree_skb(skb);
> > goto error;
> > @@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ int nfc_enable_se(struct nfc_dev *dev, u32 se_idx)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ int nfc_disable_se(struct nfc_dev *dev, u32 se_idx)
> >
> > device_lock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > - if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
> > + if (!dev->dev_register) {
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > }
> > @@ -1134,6 +1134,7 @@ int nfc_register_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
> > dev->rfkill = NULL;
> > }
> > }
> > + dev->dev_register = true;
> > device_unlock(&dev->dev);
> >
> > rc = nfc_genl_device_added(dev);
> > @@ -1166,6 +1167,7 @@ void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
> > rfkill_unregister(dev->rfkill);
> > rfkill_destroy(dev->rfkill);
> > }
> > + dev->dev_register = false;
>
> We already have flag for it - dev->shutting_down. Currently it is used
> only in if device implements check_presence but I think it can be easily
> moved to common path.
>
> Having multiple fields for similar, but slightly different cases, is
> getting us closer and closer to spaghetti code.
Thanks a lot for your suggestion, I will move dev->shutting_down to
common path.
Best regards,
Duoming Zhou
Powered by blists - more mailing lists