linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mfd: Add support for Intel LJCA device

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: <ca995ed7-e6db-4265-e528-5e29fb418594@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:27:50 +0100
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     "Ye, Xiang" <xiang.ye@...el.com>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Tyrone Ting <kfting@...oton.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
        zhifeng.wang@...el.com, wentong.wu@...el.com, lixu.zhang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mfd: Add support for Intel LJCA device

On 10.03.23 05:14, Ye, Xiang wrote:
> Hi Oliver,

Hi,

sorry for the delayed answer.

> Thanks for your review.
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:53:28PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09.03.23 08:10, Ye Xiang wrote:
>>
>>> +static int ljca_stub_write(struct ljca_stub *stub, u8 cmd, const void *obuf, unsigned int obuf_len,
>>> +			   void *ibuf, unsigned int *ibuf_len, bool wait_ack, unsigned long timeout)
>>
>> Why do you make ibuf_len a pointer?
> Because ibuf_len is also used as output of this function here.
> It stores the actual length of ibuf receive from LJCA device.

Yes, I understand that now, thank you for the explanation, yet
that is problematic, if we look at another issue. See further down:

>>> +		ret = -ENODEV;
>>> +		goto error_put;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	mutex_lock(&dev->mutex);
>>> +	stub->cur_cmd = cmd;
>>> +	stub->ipacket.ibuf = ibuf;
>>> +	stub->ipacket.ibuf_len = ibuf_len;

Here you store the pointer into the stub. Hence we must make sure
that the location it points to stays valid.

>>> +	stub->acked = false;
>>> +	ret = usb_bulk_msg(dev->udev, usb_sndbulkpipe(dev->udev, dev->out_ep), header, msg_len,
>>> +			   &actual, LJCA_USB_WRITE_TIMEOUT_MS);
>>> +	kfree(header);
>>> +	if (ret) {
>>> +		dev_err(&dev->intf->dev, "bridge write failed ret:%d\n", ret);
>>> +		goto error_unlock;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (actual != msg_len) {
>>> +		dev_err(&dev->intf->dev, "bridge write length mismatch (%d vs %d)\n", msg_len,
>>> +			actual);
>>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>>> +		goto error_unlock;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (wait_ack) {
>>> +		ret = wait_event_timeout(dev->ack_wq, stub->acked, msecs_to_jiffies(timeout));
>>> +		if (!ret) {
>>> +			dev_err(&dev->intf->dev, "acked wait timeout\n");
>>> +			ret = -ETIMEDOUT;

The function will return an error in the timeout case.
This may be a trivial observation but it becomes important.

>> If that triggers, you may have a pending URB.

I misspoke. Pending IO would have been correct.

>> You must kill it.
> which URB? I guess what you mean is dev->in_urb?
> But the in_urb should always be up to waiting for message from firmware,
> even through this timeout happen.


Now let's look at ljca_mng_reset_handshake(). I am afraid I have to quote
its first part in full:

+static int ljca_mng_reset_handshake(struct ljca_stub *stub)
+{
+	struct ljca_mng_priv *priv;
+	__le32 reset_id;
+	__le32 reset_id_ret = 0;
+	unsigned int ilen = sizeof(__le32);

This is on the _stack_
Highly important !!!

+	int ret;
+
+	priv = ljca_priv(stub);
+	reset_id = cpu_to_le32(priv->reset_id++);
+	ret = ljca_stub_write(stub, LJCA_MNG_RESET_NOTIFY, &reset_id, sizeof(reset_id),
+			      &reset_id_ret, &ilen, true, LJCA_USB_WRITE_ACK_TIMEOUT_MS);

If we run into the timeout error case, ret will be -ETIMEDOUT.

+	if (ret)
+		return ret;

And thus here we return and free the stack _including_ "ilen", which we
still have a pointer to. That means if the operation concludes after
a timeout, we _will_ follow a rogue pointer.
A couple of functions have this race condition.


>> What happens to stub in the error case?
> ljca_add_mfd_cell only failed when krealloc_array failing. When
> ljca_add_mfd_cell fails, the related stub just be left alone here.
> 
> Maybe I should free the stub here when fails? what is your advice?

Yes, that is the cleanest solution.

>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> +static void ljca_disconnect(struct usb_interface *intf)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct ljca_dev *dev = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
>>> +
>>> +	ljca_stop(dev);
>>
>> What prevents restarting the device here?

Sorry, you are calling ljca_start() only in probe(9 and resume()
Your code is correct.

	Regards
		Oliver